HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2001-09-18Lake Oswego
City Council
eeting of
8, 2001
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MORNING MEETING
Tuesday, September 18, 2001
7:30 a.m.
Council Chambers
City Hall
City Councilors 380 A Avenue
Judie Hammerstad. Mayor AGENDA
Jack Hoffman, Council President
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Bill Schoen Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Gay Graham E -Mail: public_aflf'airs@ci.oswego.or.us
John Turchi Phone: (503)675-3984
'his meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please
ontact Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA
4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Council Budget: status report..........................................................................................1
5.2 Sister City Status Report..................................................................................................9
5.3 Updating Eagle Creek Testimon,* ...................................................................................17
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d) for deliberations with persons designated to
conduct labor negotiations
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Meeting
September 18, 2001
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
DATE
MORNING
EVENING MEETINGS
MEETINGS — 7:30 a.m.
— 6:00 p.m.
Thursday,
Mayor and City Manager meeting with Board and
September 20
Committee Chairs
5:30 p.m. Council Chamber
Tuesday,
No meeting scheduled
September 25
Monday,
14.formation Session (4-6 p.m.)
October 1
• Lake Interceptor Report
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
October 2
Future Agenda Schedule
• USTA Facility of the Year Award
• Michael Carlson, Clackamas River Basin
Council Executive Director— Presentation
• IGA with Clean Water Services (Res. 01-74)
• Appointment of task force for Unsung Heroes
Public Hearings
• Local Street Connectivity
(LU 00-0015 A/Ord. 2307)
• Mode Split Targets (LU 00-0018)
• East End Commercial District Housing
Amendment (LU 01-0027/Ord. 2306)
• Adoption of CIP
Tuesday,
Svecial Meeting
October 9
• Joint meeting with Planning Commission,
DRC, and Infill Task Force
Monday,
Latbrmation Session with PRAB
October 15
Main Fire Station (4-6 p.m.)
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Park Rules
Park Fees
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
October 16
Future Agenda Schedule
• Award of a public improvement contract for
construction of FY 2001/02 water system
rehabilitation program
• Vacating portions of Tenth Street (Ord. 2304)
Public Hearings
• Transportation Public Facilities Plan — Bryant
Rd. (CPA) (LU 0 1 -0029)
• Proposal to annex .05 acres at 13020 Knaus
Road (AN 01-0005/Ord. 2305)
• Special Street Setbacks (LU 99-0020)
Tuesday,
,Special Meeting
October 23
• Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98)
Wednesday,
Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego School District
October 24
6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Tuesday,
No ctin"
October 30
BOLO ITEMS — News Issues added to Calendar
Items known as of 9/14/01
N:\Agendas\Agcndaforms\Schedule.doc
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
DATE
MORNING
EVENING MEETINGS
MEETINGS — 7:30 a.m.
— 6:00 p.m.
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
November 6
Future Agenda Schedule
Public Hearings
Nov 9-11
League of, Oregon Cities — Etat; end
Tuesday,
Special Meeting
November 13
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
November 20
Future Agenda Schedule
Public Hearings
• Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98)
Tuesday,
No Meetings
November 27
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
R iNdar Session
December 4
Future Agenda Schedule
• Unsung Heroes Award
Public Hearings
• Master Fee Schedule
Tuesday,
Special Meeting
December 11
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
December 18
Future Agenda Schedule
Public Hearings
• Long Term Care Housing (LU 99-0070)
Tuesday,
No M�—City Hall Closed
December 25
AWAITING MEETING DATE
NO SPECIFIC DAIL? AT T111S TIME
• Joint Meeting with School Board .............
• Council goal update ..................................
• Consolidated Land Use Map LU 99-0002
• Variance Criteria (LU 99-0059) ...............
• Clackamas River Basin Council
SIATUS
........... Quarterly
...........Monthly
.............
• Water Policies
• Sign code policy re: open house signs .......
BOLD ITEMS — News Issues added to Calendar
liems known as of 9/14/01
N:\Agendas\Agendafornis\Schedule.doc
.....Awaiting Planning Commission decision
.....Awaiting input by interested parties
.....After September 15
Awaiting scheduling
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5.1 ANI
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 00/18/01
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Council Budget — 2001-02/Expenses
Council asked to discuss its budget and travel and training allocation at a future meeting following
discussion on 16 July.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoff/date
I
ATTACHMENTS:
• Schmitz memo of
12 September, 2001
with attachment
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY ANAGER
signoff/da e
1
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FR: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
RE: Council Budget 2001-02/Expenses
DARE: 12 September 2001
BACKGROUND: Council discussed its per member training and travel allocation
at meetings of 5 June and 16 July. At the 16 July session, Council asked
for some additional information, which is being provided under separate
cover once received from the Finance Department.
Through mid-August, Councilors had spent $1,513 in toto for fiscal year
2001-02.
Attached are minutes of the 5 June and 16 July discussions.
Attachments: Minute Extract of 5 June 2001
Minute Extract of 16 July 2001
• Additional Allocation for conferences
Mayor Hammerstad presented Councilor Rohde's request for additional flunds to attend the
Livable Oregon Conference at the Resort at the Mountain and the Cascadia Project in Whistler,
B.C. She indicated that she also would attend the Cascadia Project also but she has not spent all
her allocation.
Councilor Rohde noted that he would stay at his cabin in the area during the Livable Oregon
conference and thus needed funds for the conference cost only. He mentioned that he has
attended the Cascadia Conference for two years, more because of his JPACT involvement than
his Council seat, but the regional issues discussed have been valuable and it was good
representation for the City, keeping Lake Oswego on the forefront.
Councilor McPeak stated that she would vote no. She commented that, although Councilor
Rohde did benefit the City in his activities, she thought that they should each stay within their
allocation, as there were many competing needs facing the Council. Mayor Hammerstad
indicated that the total request was for less than $1,000. Councilor Rohde pointed out that the
money would come from funds budgeted for City Council activities not used by the other
Councilors.
Councilor Rohde disagreed with Councilor McPeak that the Council has not swapped those
funds between Councilors in the past. He explained that originally, there was one pot of money
to pay for all Councilor expenses; the individual allocations were a relatively new development,
and if a Councilor did not use his/her allocation, the money simply stayed there.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that next year there was $1,000 less for Councilor expenses, which
put pressure on what the Council wanted to do. She restated the question: was the Council
willing to allocate the additional funds to Councilor Rohde to attend these two meetings, using
the used money budgeted this fiscal year for Council expenses? She noted that most of
Councilor Schoen's $4,000 was still available, as he had not attended the NLC conference in
Washington, D.C. She confirmed to Councilor McPeak that if the Council did not use the
money, then it went into the ending fund balance, it did not roll over in the fund to the next year.
Councilor Rohde moved that unexpended Council training and development funds be used
for his attendance at the Cascadia conference and at the Livable Oregon conference.
Councilor Turchi seconded the motion.
Councilor Hoffman commented that he thought that Councilor Rohde should generally go to
these conferences but conceded that the Council had to shrink back on its attendance at some
point. He indicated that lie saw the Livable Oregon conference as more relevant than the
Cascadia conference.
Councilor Hoffman said that he was a bit reluctant but he would vote for the motion but this
was the last time. Ile spoke in support of Councilor McPeak's suggestion that they tighten their
belts, starting in June.
Mayor Hammerstad stated that she has attended the Cascadia conference four times and found
it the best urban planning meeting she has ever been to. She explained that urban planners from
all over the U.S. discussed the best practices used around the country. She recalled a tour of the
downtown redevelopment in Kirkland, Washington, which she held was the kind of thing that
gave Lake Oswego ideas about how its downtown should look. She mentioned the high-speed
rail and getting from Vancouver, B.C. to Eugene as a transportation issue of interest to Councilor
Rohde.
Councilor McPeak said that she did not question that it would be valuable. She reiterated her
concern that they look forward 12 months and decide what activities would be of most value to
them as Councilors; when that money was gone, then the Councilors paid for the conferences
themselves.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14
June 5, 2001
5
A voice vote was taken and the motion pjis-ml N�ith Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors
Turchi, Graham, Hoffman and Rohde voting in favor; Councilor Mcl'eak voted against the
motion. 15-11
• Councilor Graham referenced Mr. Schmitz's memo on the accelerated attrition program.
She asked if that was a way to pay for the needed boost for the Community Development
Director. Mr. Schmitz said that it depended on how many people participated.
• Councilor Graham asked for clarification on the request from Jonathan Snell, Natural
Resources Advisory Board. Mr. Schmitz explained that Mr. Snell was getting a variety of
storm water management studies prepared by the City and the Lake Corporation in the last
several years. He said that NRAB had an ongoing interest in how the City might change
some of its storm water practices.
Councilor Hoffman mentioned that he had seen the same issue with Jonathan Snell that
Councilor Graham asked about. He observed that this issue was the same thing as
Greenstreets, the program discussed by the professor from British Columbia: the concept of
looking at the street roadway system as part of a storm water system. He spoke in support of
NRAB taking this on as a project. lie mentioned that this was the second area in which he
has heard this idea discussed: first in engineering and now, natural resources.
• Mayor Hammerstad informed the Council that when she and Mr. Schmitz met with the
Lake Corporation in March to discuss various issues, they committed City support for the
fireworks this year but not for 2002. She commented that they had not realized that the
budget for fireworks would be reduced in the next fiscal year. She apologized for not
checking with the Council and asked if the Councilors would support this already committed
money; the Lake Corporation has already gone ahead with its plans, based on the City's
commitment.
Councilor Hoffman said that he had no problem supporting the commitment of $2,500. Ile
suggested that the Mayor tell the Lake Corporation that this expenditure of political capital
on her part was evidence that the City was trying hard to work with the Lake Corporation,
and to ask for discussion of even more issues that the City wanted to talk about. Mayor
Hammerstad said that she could do that. She thanked the Council for its support.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned the e-mail responding to John Pullen's letter. He noted that some
thought that Patt Thomas handled the issue effectively at the meeting. He asked if staff
should respond formally and tell Ron Peterson that lie could release the space. Councilor
McPeak asked if Ms. Thomas' handling of the matter was sufficient to make it go away.
Councilor Hoffman indicated that lie thought so because the people at the meeting were the
only ones who read the newsletter.
Councilor Graham commented that she did not think it was a burning issue and that Ms.
Thomas did a good job in answering the charge. Councilor Hoffman mentioned that Ms.
Thomas had thought it was a non -issue after she said her piece. Mayor Hammerstad
reported that she talked to Jeff Gudman about the letter and the minutes. Mr. Schmitz
summarized the Council consensus as `do not respond.'
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 9:35 a.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS
192.660(1)(h) to consult with counsel concerning legal rights and duties of a public body in
regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive
Session parameters.
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor I laninierstad reconvened the open session at 9:40 a.m.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
June 5, 2001
Page 13 of 14
M
Portland Sister City program used only private funding, and no government funding. She
characterized that as a superior way to continue the program.
Councilor McPeak held that they could find a way to end the relationship without hurt feelings.
She observed that the Council has been trying to back away from this decision ever since it was
made, which made it questionable as to whether the Council wanted to end the. relationship. She
indicated that she did not think that the relationship was worth the $4,500. She spoke to the
Council being wary that the demands made on the City by its sister city would only get bigger.
She pointed out that only a small part of Lake Oswego has supported this program, which told
her that it was not important to their city.
Councilor Rohde said that he had thought it had been a mistake to defund the program and that
the program had never been properly structured in the first place. He recalled that it was an
extension of an arrangement that Lake Oswego had with a Chilean city. He concurred with
Councilor Turchi that they should talk to people at Portland State in order to find out what it
would take to operate a minimal sister city relationship. He spoke of funding the program at
$5,000.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Councilor Turchi to meet with someone at Portland State to figure
out what the Council could do. She noted that, while the Councilors did not need to go to
Yoshikawa, she knew that the Yoshikawa people wanted to keep coming to Lake Oswego for
things like the Lake Run. She commented that it sounded like it would take a small amount of
money and effort on the Council's part.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Yoshikawa people wanted to send art to the Festival,
which was fine, but they also wanted Lake Oswego to send things to them; the City did not want
to do so because of the shipping costs. She indicated that what seemed best to her was to tell
them that Lake Oswego did not have the money budgeted to participate but the Council would
still welcome their visits.
Councilor Rohde suggested talking to the Beaverton and Portland Sister City offices, as they
might have good advice on how a small city like Lake Oswego could still have a fruitful
relationship.
D. Council Corner
Councilor Graham described this as a column in the Review, similar to the He//o LO articles
written by the Council, in which the Councilor writing the column could discuss current events
or future vision. She spoke to the Council discussing what to write about and sharing the duty.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Review was willing to publish a column every couple of
weeks. She pointed out that the problem for the Council was that it was one more thing to do.
She asked if the Council wanted to postpone doing this or drop it entirely. Councilor Graham
suggested revisiting the issue in January while continuing to write the OpEd pieces as needed.
E. Council Expenses
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council expenses budget was reduced this year from
$4,000 per person to $3,000. She mentioned that they already had reservations at a hotel in
Washington, U.C. She cautioned the Council that they would go through the money quickly if
they were not careful.
Councilor McPeak mentioned that Mr. Schmitz told her that the Council could not carry over a
balance from year to year. She explained that her idea was to allow each Councilor to
accumulate tip to two years worth, which would provide them with greater flexibility in planning
a two-year budget. She spoke of another possibility of pooling the $21,000, so that what one
Councilor did not spend would be available to another Councilor.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes — Afternoon Session Page 10 of 13
July 16, 2001
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that it was barely possible to do the
Washington, D.C. conference and the November League of Cities conference on $3,000.
Councilor Hoffman suggested rethinking the $3,000 limit.
Councilor Graham spoke in support of individual Councilor accounts as opposed to a pool.
She asked to see what she has spent so that she could decide what she could do with the
remainder.
Councilor Rohde observed that one of the first things often cut from a budget was training and
development. He argued that doing so did not help the organization or make it better able to
cope with the changes necessary in government. He described the two benefits to attending
regional and state conferences: the things that the Councilors learned, and the value of Lake
Oswego's representation at the conferences.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that there was no structure for the cities of Clackamas County to
contribute towards the cost of his going to the National League of Cities conference early in
order to lobby as a member of the JPAC delegation on behalf of transportation for the region;
therefore, Lake Oswego bore the entire cost. He argued that the his being there has enabled him
to have a Lake Oswego influence as well, citing his discussions with congressional
representatives about the Willamette Shore Rail line and their hope to get it all federally funded.
Councilor Rohde held that the name of Lake Oswego appearing on the list of attending cities at
these different conferences added to the City's reputation as a player at the table at the state
level.
Councilor McPeak asked for a fuller discussion of this issue in public. Mayor Hammerstad
said that she would schedule another discussion.
Councilor Schoen stated his opposition to carrying anything over. He argued for looking at
each budget annually. lie held that if they could justify increased travel expenses at the end of
the year, then they should increase the allocation in the next year's budget. He spoke to figuring
out what events the Council needed to attend and to establishing a bottom line.
Councilor Turchi suggested allocating a certain amount of money to each Councilor to attend
conferences, and allocating another amount of money for those conferences to which the City
needed to send a representative delegate. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she discussed this
idea with Mr. Schmitz earlier, and it might be a possibility.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Mr. Schmitz to provide the Council with an accounting of what it
spent last year.
F. Volunteerism
Councilor Rohde discussed the opportunities for volunteerism that he had identified. He
mentioned that a possible Eagle Scout project had been turning the informal pathway following
the right-of-way easement on a North Shore property that went to up to Middlecrest into a formal
pathway in conjunction with the construction of a house on that property. He suggested
mustering volunteers to clear out the blackberries and trees from the area along the railroad
tracks from Cabana Lane to Berwick in order to turn it into a walking area.
Councilor Rohde described removing the volunteer trees from an area at the intersection of
Summit and Iron Mountain Boulevard, and restoring it to the open area that it used to be for use
as a gravel parking lot for those walking the trails. He mentioned re-establishing the wetlands on
the land the City owned east of the Hunt Club and using it as an overflow drain and settling area.
Councilor Rohde spoke to the City identifying places in the community that it could improve
through a one -day volunteer project, using numerous volunteers overseen by a staff person.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that several groups have contacted her wanting to do volunteer
projects, such as the Boy Scouts and the Rotary Club. She pointed out that by master planning
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes — Afternoon Session Page 1 I of 13
July 16, 2001
8
T0: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FR: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
RE: Council Training/Travel Actual Expenses: 2000-01
DATE: 13 September 2001
At the meeting of 16 July, when Council discussed its individual training
and travel allocations for this fiscal year, a request was made for the
breakdown of expenses per member for last fiscal year. The Finance
Department has prepared the attached document.
This subject is on your agenda for Tuesday morning, 1.8 September.
STATUS OF CITY COUNCIL BUDGET ALLOCATION
2000-2001
432130-100-101000
CITY COUNCIL
Allocated
Budget
2000-2001'
Cascadia Conf
7/20-7122/00 &
Other Misc.
League of Or
Cities- Conf
11/00 & Misc.
Expense
NLC Conf
3/6-3/14/01
A
A
A
A
A
A
Cascadia
t
E
_
Estimated
Balance
Remaining
Metro Forum
6129-6/30101
MAYOR
Hammerstad, Judie
4,000
215
331
2,797
715
657.00
CONCILORS
Graham, Gay
2,503
4,000
25
306
_
1,166.00
Hoffman, Jack
4,000
25
45
3,580
350.00
McPeak, Ellie
4,000
25
91
3,106
778.00
Rohde, Karl
4,000
1,244
E
343
4,104
815
1,691.00
0
Schoen, Bill
4,000
25
246
0
3,729.00
Turchi, John
4,000
0
2,037
1,963.00
Non -Specific
300
300.00
TOTALS
28,000
1,859
1,362
18,127
1,530
5,122.0()
A = Actuals
E = Estimates
$2,374 charged to Conferences/Developrnenl & Trng for Bill Klommur
5131/2001
CityCouncilExp
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5.2 AMo9� �a�oi
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Sister Cities Program
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS:
IMPACT:
• Schmitz memo of
12 September, 2001
with attachments
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoff/date
Doc.13111u„t i I
II NOTICED (Dat(
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.
Previous Coun
consideration:
CITY NAGER
signoff/date
a
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DA'Z'E:
BACKGROUND
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
Sister Cities Program
12 September, 2001
MEMORANDUM
The Council previously discussed funding during FY 2001-02 for Sister City activities at
meetings on 8 May and 16 July. The Budget Committee, at its meeting of 7 May, had
removed the $4,000 which had been included in the Provisional Budget for Sister City
activities.
At the meeting of 8 May, Mayor Hammerstad broached the subject with the Council of
reinstating $1,000 for 2001-02 Sister City related expenses. No decision was reached at
that time, and the matter was further discussed on 16 July. At that meeting, Councilor
Schoen proposed funding at approximately $3,000 a year. Councilor Rohde proposed
funding at $5,000; no action was taken on either proposal.
ISSUES
The existence of this Sister City relationship has several issues linked to resources or the
lack of resources. Those issues are:
• The Local Sister City Organization. When the relationship between the two cities
first began in 1996, it was through the efforts of the local, private sister city
organization. That group is now basically defunct. Thus, providing sustenance to the
relationship has fallen to the City, which has not allocated sufficient resources, either
monetary or personnel, to the effort. Scheduling and coordination has been carried
out primarily by Shirley Schultz.
• Accommodations. During visits in the initial years of the relationship, our Japanese
visitors had home stays with local dignitaries, members of the private sister city
11
organization, or other individuals interested in fostering the relationship. As the years
have passed, with the demise of the local Sister City organization, many of the
visitors are being accommodated in hostelries in lieu of homes, although former
mayor Klammer has continued to provide accommodations at his house for one or
more of the visiting delegates. The cost of hostelry accommodations has been borne
from the previously funded Sister City account within the City's budget.
Gifts. The Japanese culture is high on the presentation of gifts. A good friendship
necessitates some kind of reciprocity, although the value of the City's gifts has never
quite matched that of the gifts presented by our Japanese visitors. With no resources
allocated, the City is not in a position to provide reciprocity of gifts.
RECENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION
In 1989-2000, the City expended $1,221 on Sister City activities. In 2000-01, $1,881
was spent.
ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives which the Council might consider regarding the relationship with
Yoshikawa are:
1. The allocation of resources, both monetary and staffing.
2. The recessitation of a local, private Sister City organization. This will require effort
on the part of a Councilor(s)s to engender enthusiasm amongst members of the
citizenry in order to reactivate this group.
3. Solicitation of private resources. This will require an effort on the part of a
Councilor(s) to seek private funding to be given to the City for the Sister City account
to fund accommodations, gifts, events, etc.
4. Allocation of some funding for accommodations and gifts and solicitation of
volunteers for staffing assistance.
5. Terminate the relationship.
DJS.jm
Attachments
Robyn Christie, City Recorder, noted that she, Councilors Hoffman, and 1wilde were supposed
to do the evaluation.
Mayor Hammerstad said that she asked Sinan last week what he thought about the program.
She reported that Sinan said that they enjoyed doing the projects and having a more in-depth
knowledge of the issues but sitting there on Tuesday nights was not of the most value to them.
She asked Ms. Christie to develop a questionnaire for the Youth Councilors that allowed them
the opportunity to tell the Council how valuable they found the experience and to make any
suggestions.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to making the Youth Council experience as productive as they could
for the students. Councilor Hoffman suggested holding an exit interview with the Youth
Councilors, following the May 15 meeting.
Councilor Graham suggested that she and Councilor Rohde talk with Mayor Rob Drake of
Beaverton this summer to discuss how the program worked for Beaverton. Councilor Rohde
noted that Mayor Lou Ogden of Tualatin was also involved in the Youth Council. Fie mentioned
that the League of Oregon Cities has adopted a Youth Commission and directed the Youth
Advisory Board to develop a process for cities to develop their own Youth Advisory Boards.
3.4.5 Sister Cities Program
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that last night the Budget Committee defended the Sister Cities
Program. She spoke to reinstating $1,000 in the next fiscal year for incidentals, such as
reimbursing Bill Klammer for the cost of the prime rib dinner he was providing to the group
visiting next weekend.
The Council discussed the Sister Cities Program. Councilor McPeak mentioned her
conversation with Chris Hoffman at the Chamber who had a similar assessment that this
particular sister city was an awkward one for Lake Oswego to have. She argued that making the
cut at this time was budget wise.
Councilor Schoen referenced the long-standing relationship that Lake Oswego had with
Yoshikawa in supporting Mayor Hammerstad's suggestion to increase the budget. Councilor
McPeak commented that it was not simply the money; it was finding housing for the visitors.
Councilor Turchi confirmed that he had not been able to find housing for the upcoming group —
apparently five weeks was insufficient notice - and turned it over to Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Schmitz
said that staff extended the group's stay at the Lake Shore, after running into the same problem
as Councilor Turchi.
Mayor Hammerstad agreed with Councilor McPeak that it was awkward. She indicated that
she intended to tell Azumano no with respect to their request for reimbursement. She asked Mr.
Schmitz if there was a graceful way to end the relationship. Mr. Schmitz said that they could
decide to terminate the sister city relationship based on not having funding to entertain.
Councilor Rohde held that there was value in sister city relationships, and creating a cultural
intertie with another city. He said that Lake Oswego has never committed the effort required to
do things properly. Ile argued that the town has adopted the `Ugly American' philosophy of not
participating, which he thought was ridiculous. He indicated that he would not invest any more
time in the relationship if the town did not care to participate. Councilor McPeak questioned
whether the taxpayers benefited from the cultural exchanges.
Councilor Graham indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that there was a formal Sister City
organization and protocol but the City has not followed it.
Councilor Turchi noted that Yoshikawa assigned a staff person to organize these exchanges.
He held that if this were important to Lake Oswego, they would have a staff person working part-
time with a committee. Ile commented that, while he saw value in the cultural exchange, it
would be difficult to maintain the relationship without someone committed to investing the time
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10
May 8, 2001
needed to make it work. He spoke to spending the money to do it right, it* they were going to do
it.
Councilor Rohde suggested hiring a quarter time internal affairs intern from Portland State
University to handle the program. He commented that Chris Hoffman has expressed the
Chamber's interest in participating, except that every time they stepped forward, they were asked
for money, as though they were to pay for the whole thing.
Mayor Harnmerstad noted that her first introduction to the program was when she became
Mayor. She said that it seemed to her that if this had value, then a committee within the
community should handle it, so that those with a genuine interest worked the program.
Councilor Rohde commented that the program needed to be organized out of City Hall; the
Sister City organization was not the one to do it.
Councilor Hoffman said that he favored cultural exchanges but he has wondered about the
Sister Cities program because the community has done nothing. He observed that the question of
whether Yoshikawa was the appropriate cultural sister city was another issue.
Councilor Graham suggested dropping the sister city relationship with Yoshikawa and
developing a program to tie in with the Chamber's popular Diversity Week, which involved
cultural exchanges.
Councilor McPeak commented that the sister city relationships had been intended to foster not
only cultural exchanges but business opportunities also. She noted that Lake Oswego produced
nothing for export and Yoshikawa's main product was catfish.
Mayor Hammerstad said that this conversation was not over but they needed to get to the
School District meeting, so they would have to continue it at another time.
Councilor Rohde moved to adopt Resolution 01-35 to make appointments to the
Transportation Advisory Board. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was
taken and the motion passed with Mayor Harnmerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi,
Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde voting in favor. 17-01
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hanimerstad recessed the meeting to LORA at 7:45 p.m.
Mayor Harni-nerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON June 19.2001
Judie I-larnmerstad, Mayor
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 10
May 8, 2001
of opportunity that they should have had; if any wanted to reapply for next year, that was fine.
She concurred with one-year appointments open to juniors and seniors.
Mr. Schmitz raised a pink flag on the Arts Commission. He speculated that the Commission
would enter choppy waters in the next 12 months regarding an expansion ol'tiic Arts Downtown
program on the West End.
The Council indicated that it was not interested in revising the East End Development
Committee, per Councilor Rohde's inquiry. Councilor Hoffman suggested waiting to see what
the consultant said.
• Mr. Hertzberg recessed the meeting for a five-minute break.
• Mr. Hertzberg reconvened the meeting.
6. REMAINING ISSUES
A. Unsung Heroes
Councilor Graham referenced her e-mail asking the Council to recommend names for the
Selection Task Force, which the Mayor would appoint. She said that the Task Force would meet
on October 15 and October 22 to review the application forms. She reviewed the advertising for
the program and distribution of the nomination forms around the community with an application
deadline date of October 14. She indicated that the Task Force would present its
recommendations to the Council in November and the Council would present the awards at the
December 4 meeting to the three to five people chosen as 'Unsung Heroes.'
B. Arts Awards
Mr. Schmitz reported that he talked with the Mayor and the Arts Commission co-chairs about
holding a fall event to recognize people who have contributed to the evolution, development or
financial expense of the arts. He said that the Arts Commission was so overwhelmed by the
Festival and Arts Downtown that they preferred to wait until next year and to hold it at some
other time than the fall.
C. Sister City
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Budget Committee defunded the sister city program. She
mentioned that Yoshikawa was still contacting her and continuing the relationship. She
discussed her feeling that it was rude and disrespectful for Lake Oswego to tell Yoshikawa to go
away and not bother them any more, and she was not willing to do that. She pled for some
sensitivity and support of this cultural exchange relationship that the City has fostered.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that, barring a creative way to respectfully discontinue the
relationship, she needed suggestions on how to continue the relationship on a limited basis and
how to provide Yoshikawa visitors with some hospitality.
Councilor Turchi recommended getting advice on how to end this relationship in a way that
saved face for both sides. fie referenced his experience in teaching global studies and attending
workshops on how to teach the differences between the two cultures in stating that the
differences were complicated enough that they needed advice.
Mr. Jordan indicated to Councilor Schoen that the program was funded at $4,500 in the past.
Councilor Schoen spoke in favor of continuing the program with funding at a lower level of
$3,000 a year. He concurred with Councilor Turchi that if Lake Oswego refused gifts from
Yoshikawa, Yoshikawa lost face and Lake Oswego looked bad. He held that tale relationship did
have value, even if it was not a trading relationship.
Councilor McPeak recalled that the Budget Committee discussed this issue and made a decision
on it. She conceded that the Council had the authority to change that decision. She mentioned
reading in the Metroscape magazine from the PSU Department of Urban Studies that the
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes — Afternoon Session Page 9 of 13
July 16, 2001
15
Portland Sister City program used only private funding, and no government funding. She
characterized that as a superior way to continue the program.
Councilor McPeak held that they could find a way to end the relationship without hurt feelings.
She observed that the Council has been trying to back away from this decision ever since it was
made, which made it questionable as to whether the Council wanted to end the relationship. She
indicated that she did not think that the relationship was worth the $4,500. She spoke to the
Council being wary that the demands made on the City by its sister city would only get bigger.
She pointed out that only a small part of Lake Oswego has supported this program, which told
her that it was not important to their city.
Councilor Rohde said that he had thought it had been a mistake to defund the program and that
the program had never been properly structured in the first place. He recalled that it was an
extension of an arrangement that Lake Oswego had with a Chilean city. He concurred with
Councilor Turchi that they should talk to people at Portland State in order to find out what it
would take to operate a minimal sister city relationship. He spoke of funding the program at
$5,000.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Councilor Turchi to meet with someone at Portland State to figure
out what the Council could do. She noted that, while the Councilors did not need to go to
Yoshikawa, she knew that the Yoshikawa people wanted to keep coming to Lake Oswego for
things like the Lake Run. She commented that it sounded like it would take a small amount of
money and effort on the Council's part.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Yoshikawa people wanted to send art to the Festival,
which was fine, but they also wanted Lake Oswego to send things to them; the City did not want
to do so because of the shipping costs. She indicated that what seemed best to her was to tell
them that Lake Oswego did not have the money budgeted to participate but the Council would
still welcome their visits.
Councilor Rohde suggested talking to the Beaverton and Portland Sister City offices, as they
might have good advice on how a small city like Lake Oswego could still have a fruitful
relationship.
D. Council Corner
Councilor Graham described this as a column in the Review, similar to the Hello LO articles
written by the Council, in which the Councilor writing the column could discuss current events
or future vision. She spoke to the Council discussing what to write about and sharing the duty.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Review was willing to publish a column every couple of
weeks. She pointed out that the problem for the Council was that it was one more thing to do.
She asked if the Council wanted to postpone doing this or drop it entirely. Councilor Graham
suggested revisiting the issue in January while continuing to write the OpEd pieces as needed.
E. Council Expenses
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council expenses budget was reduced this year from
$4,000 per person to $3,000. She mentioned that they already had reservations at a hotel in
Washington, D.C. She cautioned the Council that they would go through the money quickly if
they were not careful.
Councilor McPeak mentioned that Mr. Schmitz told her that the Council could not carry over a
balance from year to year. She explained that her idea was to allow each Councilor to
accumulate up to two years worth, which would provide them with greater flexibility in planning
a two-year budget. She spoke of another possibility of pooling the $21,000, so that what one
Councilor did not spend would be available to another Councilor.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes — Afternoon Session Page 10 of 13
July 16, 2001
16
CITY OF LAKE OSWF,GO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Updating Eagle Creek Testimony
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ESTIMATED FISCAL j ATTACHMENTS:
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
• Hammerstad Letter
j • Response letter from
the Forest Service
• Article titled "Congress
weighs in..."
• Report of Independent
Review Team for Eagle
1 Sale dated July G, 2001
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
5.3 AM
09/18/01
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
oe
ll -1
CITY aNAGER
-1� o
signoff/date signoff/date
\\FINANCE\1)A'I'A\INI'OSVC\ACI:NI)AS'\COUNCII.\2001\E Reports\001801\5.3 Cover.d-
Secretary Ann Veneman
Department of Agriculture
Dear Secretary Veneman,
As the elected representatives of Lake Oswego, we are particularly concerned about the
management of the Clackamas River. This watershed provides our citizens with drinking
water, provides anadromous fish with critical habitat, and many of our residents enjoy
recreating on the river. We own and manage a water intake facility on the Clackamas, so
our interest includes management proposals upstream from our water intake.
We are therefore concerned about the Eagle Creek Timber sale and its impact on the
Clackamas River system. We urge that the Department establish an independent and
qualified panel to conduct a careful and comprehensive review of this project and its
potential impact on the Clackamas River.
Because of the Recessions Act, the Eagle Timber Sales were not subject to the full peer
citizen review afforded by the National Environmental Policy Act. Given the intense
interest in Eagle Creek, it is important that independent and qualified citizens examine
not only the pertinent documents, but collect and review data collected at the timber sale
site.
As you know, Secretary Glickman assured Senator Wyden in an October 24, 2000 letter
that such a review would take place Much of the discussion of the ecological impacts of
logging in Eagle Creek has centered around blowdown. We request that this not be the
only issue to be examined during this independent review. The following issues must be
looked at as well.
• Complete wildlife surveys. The "Survey and Manage" requirements of the
Northwest Forest Pian have not been completed to protocol. The Forest Service
needs to look for species (rare and currently prevelant) associated with older,
interior forest habitat, and buffer confirmed sites before ground disturbing
activities take place.
• Examine the compatibility of the purpose and need of the project with the on -
the -ground management. Logging prescriptions that call for more shelterwood
cuts, thinning roadless forests, and ground-based yarding systems may not
19
enhance wildlife habitat diversity or maintain and enhance the health of the
watershed.
• Ensure that values of Special Emphasis Watershed are protected. Under a B-
6 Special Emphasis Watershed designation, no more than 25% of the federal lands
in the South Fork Eagle Creek Special Emphasis Watershed can be in a disturbed
state at any time. If there is more than 25% disturbance, the agency will have
violated the Mount Hood National Forest Plan.
• Follow recommendations of the Watershed Analysis. The Eagle Creek
Watershed Analysis recommends that the estimated Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ)
for the federal lands in the Eagle Creek watershed should be 10.3 million board
feet per decade. The Eagle sales alone exceed this amount by 18 million board
feet.
• Protect Trails. Logging should not preclude the use of or detract from future use
or enjoyment of all trails within or adjacent to timber sale units.
• Disclose and analyze effects of patchcuts. While the Final Environmental
Impact Statements states that there will be no clearcuts, some groves were clearcut
in patches.
We trust that for this independent review will hold the Eagle Timber Sales to the highest
environmental standard, and request that these issues be addressed.
Thank you for your concern and assistance.
Sincerely,
NU
United States Forest Washington Office 10 & Independence SW
Department of Service P.O. Bw %090NJ Agriculture Washington, DC 20090-6090
Julie Hammerstad
Mayor, Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Dear Mayor Hammerstad:
File Code: 2400 n
Date:
AUG - 6 2001
CITY OF LAKE US W eC;()
Your letter regarding the Eagle Creek Timber Sale was forwarded to the Forest Service for
response. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to you.
You requested that an independent and qualified panel be established to conduct a careful and
comprehensive review of the project and its potential impact on the Clackamas River.
You will be pleased to know that such a panel was established. The panel included Jerry F.
Franklin, Chair, Professor of Ecosystem Analysis, College of Forest Resources, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA; Bernard T. Bormann, Forest Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research
Station, Corvallis, OR; E. Charles Meslow, Wildlife Ecologist, Corvallis, OR; and Gordon H.
Reeves, Fishery Biologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR. Tile panel has
conducted their review of the sale, including a visit to the sale area, and issued their report on
July 6, 2001. Their focus was primarily centered on blowdown (toppling of trees by strong
winds which is an important natural process in most unmanaged and managed forest) as it was
key to the issues involved and those you raise.
The panel concluded "No adverse effects on water quality, aquatic ecosystems, wildlife, or other
environmental values are apparent from existing blowdown nor are significant environmental
impacts expected in the future." The team also concluded that blowdown does appear to be
greater than anticipated in some areas within and adjacent to harvest shelterwood units within the
Eagle sale. While they indicate that this does not create a current problem, the team had a long-
term concern about retention of desired levels of large, live trees on some units and about the
integrity of unlogged stands adjacent to harvest units, if areas of high blowdown became
widespread.
As a result of the finding and report of the panel, the Chief directed the Regional Forester to
review the final report and make adjustments in some units as appropriate to deal with the
potential blowdown problem.
We were pleased that the Independent Review Team for the Eagle Sale did conclude, "...the
Eagle Final Environmental Impact Statement did adequately address the issue of possible
blowdown and blowdown effects." With incorporation of the team recommendations, we expect
this sale will proceed with no significant effects on the environment.
Caring for the land and Ser% ink; I'cople
Prinled on Recycled Paper � r / `
• Julie Hammerstad 2
Thank you for your interest in the management of our National Forests and the Bugle Creek
Timber Sale.
Sincerely,
ANN M. BARTUSKA
Director, Forest & Rangelands
N N
The City Councils of West Linn and Lake
Oswego, which drink from the Clackamas
River, have echoed many of the concerns
raised by environmental groups and
concerned citizens. In response, Oregon's
Congressional delegation have asked for
modification of the remaining units as well as
a review of the purpose and need of the
Eagle Timber Sales. Since 1996, five
Members of Congress and one Senator have
expressed their concerns about the Eagle
Creek Timber Sales in seven separate letters.
The delegation has been concerned about
a number of issues, including:
I ) an unfair process in which the sales
have been sold and administered.
2) the impact of the sales on the health of
the forest adjacent to groves that are
Incom
rrm that were supposed to remain standing after stands were logged have blown
3) the risk of degrading water quality and over at an alarming rate. In this unit, dozens of "leave" trees left standing to provide
quantity in a municipal drinking protection for young seedlings are now on the ground, as are many trees outside the
watershed. unit boundaries. By creating openings in the forest, winds that previously might
have knocked over tree here and there result in catastrophic blowdown events.
Here are some selections from letters from the delegation.
"Slowdown has occurred in the units already harvested and this renews the concern that the Eagle
timber sales could cause irreversible ecological damage along the boundary of a treasured
wilderness." Letter from Blumenauer, Wu, and Wyden to Gary Larson, Supervisor of the
Mt. Hood National Forest. August 20, 1999.
"Under 36 CFR 223.116(5) you have the authority to cancel timber sale contracts when "operations
thereunder would result in serious environment degradation or resource damage." Letter from
Blumenauer, Wu, and Wyden to Hary Forsgren. Regional Forester. April 4, 2000
"If the independent team finds that the sale cannot be completed in a manner that avoids the level of
blowdown seen to date, I urge you to cancel the remainder of the Eagle Creek sales." Letter from
Wyden to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. July 24, 2000
As per Ron Wydcn's request, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman agreed to appoint an independent team to
assess the Eagle timber sales. In a letter to Wyden on October 24, 2000, Glickman writes "Should such a team
determine that further modifications to the contract are warranted or that the suspension of the Eagle Creek timber
sale is necessary and appropriate to avoid environmental damage, then appropriate action would be taken..."
Unfortunately, the Forest Service established a charter for the review team narrowly focused on blowdown.
In areas already logged, other resources have been damaged. In areas slated to be cut, the risks to old growth
dependent species and watershed health are too high to allow aggressive cutting. When the Forest Service set
up a review team in April, 2001, with a narrow charter statement focused on blowdown Representatives
I looley, DeFazio, Wu and Blumenauer sent a letter to the Forest Service requesting that the review team
conduct a through and comprehensive review of all the issues citizens, agency scientists, and elected officials
have raised over the years. The cities of West Linn (February, 2001) and Lake Oswego (April, 2001) asked
that the review include examinations of the effect of clearcutting in patches, incomplete wildlife surveys,
unprotected trails, and lack of emphasis on protecting watershed values.
L
C
U RECEIVED
JUL 18 2001
CITY OF LAKE USWEVU
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM FOR EAGLE SALE
Jerry F. Franklin, Chair
Professor of Ecosystem Analysis, College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Bernard 1'. Bormann
Forest Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR
E. Charles Meslow
Wildlife Ecologist, Corvallis, OR
Gordon H. Reeves
Fisheries Biologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR
July G, 2001
Executive Summary
The Independent Revicw Team was chartered by the USDA Forest Service to review scientific
issues associated with the Eagle Sale, Mt. Hood National Forest. The tearn was specifically
charged with addressing three questions: (1) Was blowdown anticipated and desired, inside and
outside the unit/sale boundaries?; (2) Were the effects of blowdown on the Salmon -huckleberry
Wilderness considered?; and (3) Have there been or are there expected to be any adverse
environmental effects resulting from blowdown? The team reviewed documents and scientific
literature relevant to the i§sues, made separate field trips to the Eagle Sale arca with Forest
Service and with representatives of the environmental organizations, and interviewed relevant
individuals.
In the opinion of the team the Eagle Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) adequately
considered blowdown hazards within the sale area based upon information and experience
available to the agency at the time the FEIS was prepared. Some blowdown was anticipated and
desired as a contribution to wildlife habitat. Potential impacts of blowdown on the wilderness
were considered; subsequent to award of the sale, the Mt. Hood National Forest has proposed
modifications to the sale that would substantially further reduce risks of blowdown in the
Salmon -Huckleberry Wilderness, which have not yet been accepted by the purchaser. No adverse
effects on water quality, aquatic ecosystems, wildlife, or other environmental values are apparent
from existing blowdown nor are significant environmental impacts expected in the future.
Blowdown-does appear to be greater than anticipated in some areas within and adjacent to
harvested shelterwood units within the Eagle Sale. Although this does not create a current
problem, the team has long-term concerns about retention of desired levels of large, live trees on
some units and about the integrity of unlogged stands adjacent to harvest units, if areas of high
blowdown became widespread. We recommend that the Mt. Hood National Forest use the
experience gained in the Eagle Sale to date to reassess windthrow potential and modify
silvicultural prescriptions so as to further reduce risks of widespread blowdown. Specific areas of
concern that were identified by the team were harvest prescriptions on sites with a herb -rich
understory characterized by Oxalis oregana and protection of remnant old-growth trees. .
Introduction
The independent Review Team was created and charged by the U. S. Forest Service with
reviewing aspects of the Eagle Sale, Mt. Hood National Forest, related to "... the potential for
environmental effects resulting from blowdown... ". Specifically, the team was asked to address
three questions:
(1) Was blowdown anticipated and desired, inside and outside the unit/sale boundaries?
(2) Were the effects of blowdown on the Salmon -Huckleberry Wilderness Area
considered?
(3) have there been or are there expected to be any adverse environmental effects
resulting from blowdown?
The team conducted its work between April 19 and July 6, 2001. The primary activities included:
Review of relevant documents, including the decision documents (draft and final
Environmental Impact Statements) for the sale and correspondence among
agency personnel, congressional offices, timber sale purchaser, and
environmental organizations regarding the sale (sec appendix for complete list);
Full day field trips to portions of the Eagle Timber Sale with personnel of the Mt.
Hood National Forest on May 29, 2001 and with representatives of the
environmental organizations on June 18, 2001 (sec appendix for list and
affiliations of participants). During these field trips the team visited: (1) Logged
Units 9 (commercial thin), 17 (shelterwood), 25 (commercial thin), 26
(commercial thin), and 27 (strip clearcut); and (2) Unlogged Units 2 and 13
(shcltcrwood) and 8, 14, 24, and 28 (commercial thinnings);
Full day meeting of team members on June 19, 2001 to discuss information
gained via field trips, reviews of documents and relevant scientific papers, and
acquire additional information on soils, system for rating windthrow hazard on
Eagle Sale, silvicultural prescriptions, and history of sale from Mt. Hood
National Forest; and
Writing, reviewing and finalizing this report.
The team chair did speak with Mr. G. A. Hertrich and Mr. Ed Harris of Vanport Manufacturing,
Inc. by phone on July 5, 2001.
The team focused primarily on the issues identified in its charter, all of which have to do with
technical and scientific aspects of blowdown in the Eagle Timber Sale. A number of other issues
were raised in correspondence and in the field regarding other aspects of the Eagle Timber Sale.
However, the team judged these to be primarily process issues—i.c., did the Forest Service follow
procedures and standards, such as those required under the Northwest Forest Plan—rather than
scientific issues. These issues were identified and relayed to Dr. Ann 13artuska of the USDA
Forest Service' Washington Office who will be addressing them through internal processes.
Location and Description of the South Fork Eagle Creek Drainage
Eagle Salc is located within the drainage of the South Fork of Eagle Creek, a tributary of the
Clackamas River in northwestern Oregon. It is federal land administered by the Clackamas River
Ranger District of the Mt. Hood National Forest. Eagle Creek is part of the Matrix land
allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan, excepting the unmapped Riparian Reserves
associated with aquatic features. Management objectives on Matrix forests arc expected to
include production of wood and other commodities. Managed stands are expected to incorporate
structural complexity using silvicultural approaches, such as dispersed and aggregated retention at
time of regeneration harvest. Development or maintenance of late -successional conditions is not
a primary management objective in the Matrix, however.
Forests in the South Fork Eagle Creek drainage are predominantly "mature" stands in their
second century of development (Franklin et al. 2001). They originated by natural regeneration
following wildfires during 1840-1850. Very few old-growth trees, which predate the fire,
survive. Composition of the stands is dominantly Douglas -fir, noble fir, western hemlock,
western redcedar, and Pacific silver fir. Natural stands at this stage of development exhibit
several distinct attributes including relatively large accumulations of biomass but modest
structural complexity, such as low masses of coarse woody debris (snags and down wood).
Stands at this stage are undergoing a transition in spatial pattern and causes of tree death from
dispersed competition -based mortality to spatially aggregated mortality caused by insects,
diseases, and wind (Franklin ct al. 2001).
Perspectives on Windthrow as an Ecological Process
Toppling of trees by strong winds is an important natural process in most unmanaged and
managed forests (Barnes et al. 1998). Windthrow is a natural disturbance in northwestern forest
ecosystems. In fact, windthrow is an essential process in stand development that generates
structural complexity—such as logs and small openings or gaps—which are required by many
plant and animal species (Harmon et al. 1986, Maser et al 1988, and Franklin et at 2001).
Wildlife benefits include habitat for dens, cover for hiding and movement, and foraging sites.
Downed trees benefit in -stream habitat, such as by creating pools, retaining organic matter and
spawning gravel, and providing energy and nutrients for the aquatic food chain. Other ecosystem
benefits include soil mixing (Bormann et al. 1995), which speeds soil development and increases
fertility, and creation of substrate (nurse logs) for many plants (Harmon and Franklin 1989).
Freshly windthrown trees can also result in increased bark beetle activity, however. Downed
trees may provide substrate in which broods can successfully develop and attack live trees. For
example, outbreaks of the Douglas -fir bark beetle (Dendroctonus pseudolsugae) have developed
in blowdown following severe winter storms (e.g., in 1952-1954) although such outbreaks are far
from universal responses to large-scale windthrow. Low to moderate levels of Douglas -fir bark
beetle activity are, however, very much a part of normal patterns of mortality and make important
contributions to structural development in mature (80 to 250 -year-old) Douglas -fir stands in
western Oregon and Washington (Franklin et al. 2001).
A history of blowdown predating harvesting is readily evident today throughout the South Fork
Eagle Creek watershed in the form of numerous soil mounds and pits created when roots were
lifted from the ground by falling trees. This history is well recognized and documented in the
Eagle Sale FF,IS. One notable example observed by tl►e team was a western redcedar tree that
started its life atop a windthrow mound that was created in a storm event about 300 years ago.
3u
Another example was widespread pit -and -mound topography found along the northeastern
boundary of the timber sale (Units 8 and 24).
The most noticeable effects of forest management on blowdown are associated with cutting
patterns that generate sharp edges with remaining forest stands (Franklin and Fornian 1986).
Trees grown within an intact stand that become exposed to the direct impacts of winds may
undergo substantial mortality due to wind, particularly when edges are associated with particular
topographic or soil conditions (Chen et al. 1992, Barnes et al. 1998). For example, clearcutting
in the Bull Run watershed, which preceded strong cast winds in 1973 and 1983, resulted in
blowdown along clearcut and road edges covering about 7% of the watershed (Sinton et al. 2000).
Many factors affect the interaction between wind and management. For example, as trees get
taller the risk for windthrow increases because of an elevated center -of -gravity and increased
wind leverage on tree crowns; this is true in both managed and unmanaged stands. Thinning
dense stands can increase risk of blowdown in the short term as stands are opened up and trees
arc exposed to increased winds; however, thinning can also decrease risk of blowdown in the long
term, by stimulating remnant trees to expand their root systems. Other factors include the
location of exposed (cut) edges with regards to topographic position, exposure (azimuth), soil
type, and soil moisture (both long-term and during specific storm periods). The timing, intensity,
and direction of storms interact in a complex way with these factors, leading to substantial
uncertainties in predicting windthrow probabilities.
Management plans need to incorporate the potential for and effects of blowdown in wind -prone
landscapes. The complex of site, stand, and edge factors and highly stochastic nature of storm
events currently makes prediction of blowdown hazards difficult and outcomes uncertain.
Silvicultural prescriptions need to assess goals and risks as accurately as possible, such as by:
• Assessing windthrow hazards from analyses of risk factors (e.g., soils and
topography), evidence of past blowdown events, and responses to previous
management activities;
• Identifying desired long-term densities of standing trees and logs on the forest
floor and incorporating the probable effects of windthrow on these objectives;
• Maintaining the integrity of the forest stands adjacent to the management unit,
such as by minimizing creation of sharp forest edges in high-risk areas; and
• Avoiding larger patterns of management that put whole landscapes at risk, such
as occurred in the Bull Run Watershed.
Continual monitoring of the effects of management activities on blowdown can provide the
opportunity to adjust management prescriptions when windthrow effects are either greater or
lesser than those that were anticipated initially.
Blowdown in the Engle Sale
The 1996 Eagle Final Environmental Impact Statement adequately addressed the issue of
blowdown based upon existing knowledge. The FEIS incorporates a comprehensive analysis of
historical patterns of blowdown within the South Fork Eagle Creek drainage (Appendix H). It
also provides a conceptual background and recommendations regarding windthrow
considerations in the design of the harvest units and development of silvicultural prescriptions
(pages 96-99). Implicit in the FEIS were expectations that there would be moderate levels of
blowdown associated with the timber sale and that this process would contribute to desirable
increases in coarse woody debris on the forest floor.
Blowdown associated with some of the shclterwood units does appear to exceed the desired and
anticipated amounts (percentages of the residual stand) within the unit and in some locations
(adjacent unlogged forests) where it was not anticipated. We assume, for example, that the
silviculturalist intended for many retained trees on the shclterwood cuttings to remain standing
through the next rotation as live trees and snags since this is one objective of retention harvest
prescriptions under the Northwest Forest Plan.
]'he substantial blowdown on these harvested units is probably due to a variety of factors, some
of which were not fully comprehended at the time the FEIS was completed. For example, some
sites characterized by a well-developed herbaceous understory dominated by Oxalis oregana
appear to have higher blowdown potential than might have been predicted based upon soil and
topographic conditions. Unit 17--a harvested shclterwood noted as having high levels of
blowdown--represents this site condition as do portions of several unlogged units (e.g., 13, top of
14, 28). The Oxalis sites have high productivity --hence, trees are tall with well-developed
crowns providing high leverage for winds. Soils arc deep, moist, and of low bulk density; these
soils may have a lower than average sheer strength, especially when wet, thereby contributing to
windthrow potential.
Remaining Eagle sale units that have not yet been harvested may also have higher potential for
blowdown than anticipated based on previous blowdown hazard ratings. Several units arc
entirely (Units 13 and 28) and some are partially (ridgetop in Unit 14) characterized by the
vegetation and soils of the Oxalis site type. The cast -west orientation of a temporary logging
road planned at the top of Unit 14 may increase risks to that area; this road also has the potential
to funnel cast and west winds (either of which can generate windthrow in this arca) into the
adjacent shelterwoods (Unit 13 on west and Unit 15 on cast). The strip shclterwood in Unit 27,
which was designed to reduce visual impacts, appears to have significantly affected flows of
southwesterly winds and is contributing to uprooting of trees in unlogged portions of Unit 28; this
circumstance will probably continue to generate substantial blowdown within this commercial
thin (Unit 28).
We think that it is important to note that blowdown associated with the Eagle Sale thus far has
been generated by winter storm winds of only moderate intensity. A truly high intensity wind
event has not occurred since logging of the timber sale began.
Finally, the Mt. Hood National Forest has advised us that they do not intend to do any salvage
logging of blowdown within the Eagle Sale area. Obviously, if blown -down timber is viewed as
a contribution to coarse woody debris and wildlife habitat, removal of such material is
inappropriate.
Environmental Effects of Current and Potential Blowdown
Do we expect adverse environmental clTects with current levels of blowdown and levels that
might be expected if the sale continues in its current form?
Aquatic ecosystems. There is no apparent effect of the current blowdown on the aquatic
ecosystems in the South Fork Eagle Creek drainage. There is no evidence of surface erosion
resulting from blowdown in any of the units that were visited. The absence of erosion is most
likely due to the rapid infiltration of water into the soil and the resulting low stream densities in
the watershed. The geology is ,.. , resistcnt and intermediate rock -gentle slopes" (Eagle Creek
Watershed Analysis, Appendix C of FE1S). Sediment transport is minimized under the low
stream density characteristic of the landscape. Additionally, the presence of ground cover
reduces the potential for surface erosion.
We did not observe riparian buffers that were associated with harvested units so we could not
judge how wind firm such buffers might be. We visited a buffer in Unit 24 (not yet harvested)
that is reported as 440 feet or two site potential trees in height on both sides as required by the
Northwest Forest Plan. Buffers of any size should resist blowdown under the lighter thinning
prescription, such as the 35% basal area removal planned for Unit 24.
In the watershed, the primary impacts of forest harvest on water quality arc associated with
development and maintenance of the main roads that arc directly connected with stream channels
via drainage ditclics. Most existing roads appear very stable in this landscape.
Wildlife. I3lowdown sustained to date in and adjacent to harvested sale units contributes to
wildlife habitat in the short and mid-term. Patches of blowdown concentrate down woody
material and provide an clement of habitat diversity that would otherwise not be present in the
planned, post-harvest landscape. The relatively small areas of concentrated coarse woody debris
creates no problem for wildlife and, in fact, provide refugia for species that utilize tangles of
down material for denning, foraging and escape.
Concentrated blowdown can be a long-term problem when it eliminates many or most of the
retained green trees (e.g., the ovcrstory trees in the "shcltcrwood" cuts of the Eagle Sale). These
trees are intended, in part, to provide an element of large trcc diversity in the developing new
stand and landscape. Some of these retained large trees arc also expected to be the source of the
large snag component in future stands. Large snags arc an important and routinely scarce wildlife
habitat element in managed forests.
'Tile extent of blowdown in and adjacent to harvest units and the landscape context (e.g., South
Fork Eagle Creek drainage) arc both critical in evaluating the tradeoff between positive values of
concentrated patches of down woody material and the need for retained large standing structures
as live trees and snags. We arc not in a position to make such an analysis. Although the
blowdown sustained to date in the Eagle Sale is a positive rather than negative contribution to
wildlife habitat, the forest should continue to refine efforts to avoid extensive loss of residual
green trees.
Asa final note, one objective in regeneration harvests under the Northwest Forest Plan is
provision for structural diversity in subsequent managed stands by retaining or providing for the
creation of key structures, such as large green trees, large snags, and large logs. A minimum of
15% of the harvested stand is supposed to be retained in order to restore and maintain a variety of
ecosystem processes and elements of biological diversity (Franklin et al. 1987). As just noted
with regards to wildlife habitat, habitual rapid loss of the majority of retained green trees on
harvest units should be avoided. In areas with high blowdown risks, greater numbers of trees
may need to be retained to increase probabilities of achieving desired densities of surviving
standing trees.
Threat to Salmon -Huckleberry Wilderness. We looked carefully at the potential effects of the
harvesting in Units 8 and 24, which are located on the southwestern boundary of the Salmon -
Huckleberry Wilderness. These units are in a critical location since they arc on the windward
side of the ridgetop boundary between Eagle Creek and the wilderness with respect to the
southerly and westerly winds that dominate in this drainage. For example, timber harvest could
�J
potentially generate windthrow in the wilderness by modifying airflow and creating turbulence on
the lee (northeast) side of the ridge.
Commercial thinning with 35% removal is proposed for Units 8 and 24, neither of which has
been harvested. The forest has concentrated much of this harvest in small openings so as to
reduce the potential for windthrow. The forest advised us that most of these openings are ''A acre
with a few larger openings (maximum 1 1/7 acre) although we did not verify the size distribution.
Such an approach could appropriately be labeled group selection and is analogous to natural gap -
forming processes (Franklin ct al. 2001). Concentrating the harvest in this way may be preferable
to a uniform thinning in Units 8 and 24 from the standpoint of blowdown. In blowdown-prone
environments, silvicultural prescriptions that create small openings well distributed through an
undisturbed or intact forest matrix may be superior to prescriptions that uniformly disturb forests
and open canopies over large areas. The openings must be kept small, however, so that
opportunities for wind penetration arc limited. Our opinion about the merits of group selection
contrasts with views expressed by the purchaser (letter from G. A. Hertrich of Vanport
Manufacturing to Forest Supervisor, dated November 18, 1999).
With regards to Units 8 and 24, we found that the original silvicultural prescriptions provided
substantial buffering and, further, that the Mt. Hood National Forest already has reassessed
potential blowdown hazards and proposed modifications to the Eagle Sale so as to further reduce
risks to the wilderness. The original prescription provided for a no -cut buffer along the
ridge line/wilderness boundary of 75 to 200 feet; harvesting intensity would increase gradually
from 10 to 15% right at the no -cut buffer boundary to 35% further downslope. Subsequently, the
forest has proposed an additional 200' of buf cring—i.c., 200 additional feet of no -harvest buffer
beginning at the current no -cut boundary. This would provide a total no -cut buffer of 275 to 400
feet between harvested areas and the top of the ridgeline/wilderness boundary. The purchaser is
still considering the proposed modifications of the boundaries of Units 8 and 24 as of the date of
this report. We endorse the Mt. Hood proposal, which we believe will reduce the risk of
blowdown in the Salmon -Huckleberry Wilderness to low levels.
Threats to forest health, Concems over both bark beetles and fire provide incentives for forest
managers to avoid creating large concentrations of blowdown in the watershed. Douglas -fir bark
beetles can breed in freshly windthrown trees and emerge from them to attack live trees.
Successful beetle attacks are clearly evident at several locations both inside and outside harvest
units in the form of individual and small groups of beetle -killed Douglas -firs. In fact, low to
moderate levels of Douglas -fir bark beetle activity arc expected and appropriate in mature (100 -
to 250 -year-old) stands, such as those found in South Fork Eagle Creek. These attacks rebuild
large snag populations and create spatial heterogeneity (gaps) within previous homogenous stands
(Franklin ct al. 2001). However, chronic rather than epidemic levels of beetle activity in a
landscape are preferred as contributors to development of forest structure.
I3lowdown also influences fire risk and resistance -to -control by increasing fuel loadings directly
and indirectly. Contributions to fine and medium fuels arc a direct but relatively short term issue.
Direct effects of blowdown on large fuels (down boles) and indirect effects (through bark beetle
activity) on snag densities are long-term issues. We do note that these arc west -side forests
where large fuel loadings arc characteristic, unlike cast -side ponderosa pine and mixed conifer
forests, where high fuel loadings arc often the result of fire suppression progratns.
Recommended Actions
In our opinion, in the Eagle FEIS the Mt. Hood National Forest did analyze and address
blowdown hazards within the Eagle Sale area based on information that was available in 1996.
However, additional knowledge has accumulated as a result of experiences with the areas logged
to date. The forest has the opportunity to make adjustments in the sale using this information to
modify some of the silvicultural prescriptions so as to reduce the probabilities of blowdown in
excess of desired amounts. This is an adaptive process that the forest has already begun with its
proposed modifications of Units 8 and 24. We again note our opinion that the sale as currently
configured presents no significant threat to water quality or to wildlife. We also opine that the
sale has a low probability of producing significant blowdown within the Salmon -Huckleberry
Wilderness—provided that the modifications of harvest plans in Units 8 and 24 proposed by the
Mt. Hood National Forest are adopted.
Our recommendations are as follows:
• Mt. Hood National Forest's proposed modification of the harvest -free buffer in
Units 8 and 24 should be adopted;
• Mount Hood National Forest should review the silvicultural prescriptions for all
remaining units in Eagle Sale in view of the blowdown experienced up to this
time;
• Units partially or entirely located on sites characterized by Oxalis plant
communities should receive particular attention with regards to location (e.g.,
relationship to existing and proposed harvest units) and silvicultural prescription
(increased overstory retention). Unit 13, the ridgetop portion of Unit 14, and
unharvested portions of Unit 28 are exemplary.
•
Tile forest should consider an alternative to the temporary road proposed along
the ridgctop in Unit 14 because of its cast -west orientation; and
•
Tile forest should review their approach to protection of remnant old-growth
trees in the sale area since they arc very uncommon in the South Fork Eagle
Creek drainage. We recommend that the forest consider protecting such
remnants as part of a retained aggregate rather than by marking individual trees
for retention.
Process Issues
I?nvironmentalists and congressional offices have raised a number of additional issues regarding
the Eagle Sale. These include conformity with provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan (e.g.,
Survey and Manage requirements), consistency with the Eagle Creek Watershed Analysis,
communication, entry into an inventoried roadless area, adequacy of tree marking, and removal of
marked trees as a result of logging methods. We view these as procedural or policy issues and
not appropriate for a scientific or technical review—i.e., they have to do whether the forest has
followed procedures and policies and the veracity of forest statements about the intent and
specifics of the timber sale
Conclusions
The Independent Review Team for the Eagle Sale concludes that the Eagle FEIS did adequately
address the issue of possible blowdown and blowdown effects. In our judgement:
Blowdown was an anticipated and desired effect of timber harvesting within the
Eagle Sale;
Effects of blowdown in the Salmon -Huckleberry Wilderness were considered
and, in fact, the Mt. Hood National Forest has proposed modifying sale units to
further reduce the risk to the wilderness; and
At current levels of blowdown no adverse environmental effects arc expected,
such as on water quality, aquatic ecosystems, or wildlife.
Blowdown levels experienced in some logged portions of the Eagle Sale do appear to exceed the
desired amounts in some harvested stands and to have occurred in some locations where it was
not anticipated. The experience with blowdown during the initial phases of the sale can be used
to modify silvicultural prescriptions on remaining harvest units so as to reduce the potential for
blowdown in excess of desired levels.
Literature Cited
Barnes, B. V., D. R. Zak, S. R. Denton, and S. H. Spurr. 1998. Forest ecology. 4'h edition. 774
P. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Bormann, B. T., H. Spaltenstein, M. H. McClellan, et al. 1995. Rapid soil development after
windthrow disturbance in pristine forests. Journal of Ecology 83: 747-757.
Chen, J., J. F. Franklin, and T. A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation responses to edge cnvironmcnts in
old-growth Douglas -fir forests. Ecological Applications 5:74-86
Franklin, J. F., and R. T. T. Forman. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting:
ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology 1:5-18.
Franklin, J. F., T. A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, ct al. 2001. Disturbances and structural development of
natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas -fir forests as an example.
Forest Ecology and Management 5624:1-25.
Hannon, M. E., and J. F. Franklin. 1989. Tree seedlings on logs in Picea-T.vuga forests of
Oregon and Washington. Ecology 70:48-59.
Harmon, M. E., J. F. Franklin, F. J. Swanson, ct al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in
terrestrial ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15:133-302.
3o
f/b/ a• -h
sf�
Lake Oswego
City Council
*?,,/ 6]em Meeti*ng of
Sg4zt I�p 200 1,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Discussion items for Joint HRAB-Council Meeting
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date):
IMPACT: 11
• September 13, 2001
memo from Sidaro Sin
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoffldate
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY MANAGER
signoffldate
Community Development
Planning Division
Memorandum
To: Doug J. Schmitz, City Manager
From: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
Subject: Discussion items for September 18, Joint HRAB-Council Dinner Meeting
Date: September 13, 2001
Historic Element to Block 138
o Upon discussions with Bob Galante, he indicated that there could be a possibility of including
some sort of "historic" element to the development of Block 138. Some ideas that the Board has
come up with include:
■ Bronze cast plaques of historic events or people in Lake Oswego, to be located along the
curved wall between the upper and lower level of the Millennium Park.
■ A sculpture piece that represents a historic icon or theme from Lake Oswego's past.
• An informational kiosk with a changing exhibit of photos from the past. This could also
serve as a public informational center.
■ A set of bronze cast plaques that depict the history of Lake Oswego. These are to be
placed in random locations throughout Block 138.
• Flag Display of US, Oregon and Lake Oswego flags with a plaque that talks about each
flag.
■ Sell bricks for one of the main walkway areas. Proceeds to go towards HRAB projects.
■ Time capsule
• Historic Markers (plagues)
o Commemorative bronze oval plaques mounted on homes that identify homes that are on the
City's Landmark Designation List. To start off, the Board is considering awarding these plaques
to some of the homes in the First Addition, then moving to other areas from there.
• Headeate
o The last discussion the Board had on this matter, they recommended that perhaps a better location
for the headgate would be the entrance to the Bryant Wood Park. This recommendation was
related in a memo from the Board to Rachel Fisher of Special Projects. There has not been any
activity since.
• Iron Smelter
o The Board would like to provide any services the project may need in regards to historic
preservation or context.
• U_pdate the First Addition and Old Town Self -Walking Tour Brochures
o These brochures were created in 1995 and have not been updated since.
• C'ode Revision for Chapter 58, Historic Preservation
o The Board would like to review the code to ensure that the Code is still applicable to today's
applications, make it more user friendly, and consider amendments to the sections of the code that
deter people from listing their home on the City's Landmark Designation List.
Page 1
Lake Oswego
City Council
Meeting of
Se
at I 8 I 2001
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, September 1,, 2041
5:00 P.M. Special Meeting
6:00 P.M. Regular Meethtg
City Hall
380 A Avenue
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, Council President Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Bill Schoen E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us
Gay Graham Phone: (503) 675-3984
John Turchi
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Special Meeting
Courtroom
5-110 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. Study Session with the Historic Resources Advisory Board
4. ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
MOMENT OF SILENCE
6:0; 3. PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITION
3.1 A T & T, Qwest, Verizon, Metropolitan Area Communications
Commission (MACC)- presentation high speed access
City Council Agenda Page I of 4
September 18, 2001
inaled
T"
6-50
4. CONSENT AGENDA
♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items
that require no discussion.
♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent
agenda.
♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included
in the consent agenda
4.1 COUNCIL BUSINESS
4.1.1 Request to create an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force .............................I
and approve Charge Statement
Action: To approve the formation of an Ad -Hoc Tree Code
Review Task Force and related Charge Statement
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 01-57, authorizing a temporary easement on River .........................7
Run Park for the purpose of wetland enhancement
Action: Adopt Resolution 01-57
4.2.2 Resolution 01-71, authorizing an amendment to the.......................................2.3
intergovernmental agreement continuing the Local Vouth
Diversion Program in order to increase funding for the
program
Action: Adopt Resolution 01-71
4.2. i Resolution 01-72, authorizing the Mal -or to sign an......................................29
intergovernmental agreement with Washington County for the
installation and operation of a stream gauging station on
Springbrook Creek
Action: Adopt Resolution Ol -72
4.2.4 Resolution 01-73, approving an easement for stream .................................... 5
restoration on Springbrook Creek, and authorizing payment
Action: Adopt Resolution 01-73
4.4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.4.1 July 16, 2001, Council Retreat ...............
City Council Meeting
September 18, 2001
................................................... _ 4 5
Page 2 of 4
Estimated
Action: Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council
adds corrections to the motion)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA
VOICE VOTE
END CONSENT AGENDA
6:55 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
7:00 6. CITIZEN COMMENT
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present
information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda.
A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Ordinance 2310, amending LOC Chapter 47 (Sign Code) of the ...................77
City of Lake Oswego Code to allow temporary signs in the public
right-of-way at specified times and specified zoning districts
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Public Testimony
• 5 minutes for individuals
10 minutes for representatives of a recognized neighborhood
association, government or government agency, or other
incorporated public interest organization
Questions of Staff
Motion: If the Council wishes it should move to enact
Ordinance 2310
Discussion
7.2 Ordinance 2311, approving an amendment to the non-exclusive cable .........93
television services franchise agreement granted to TCI Cablevision of
Tualatin Valley by extending the deadline for construction of the
required system upgrade
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Public Testimony
• 5 minutes for individuals
City Council Meeting
September 18, 2001
Page 3 of 4
Estimated
Time
• 10 minutes for representatives of a recognized neighborhood
association, government or government agency, or other
incorporated public interest organization
Questions of Staff
Motion: If the Council wishes it should move to enact
Ordinance 2311
Discussion
8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the
agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes.
8.1 Councilor Information
8.1.1 Joint Use Library Task Force Revised Charge Statement.............................115
8.1.2 Formation of Clackamas County Coordinating Committee ..........................123
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees,
and Intergovernmental Committees
8:50 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
9.2 City Attorney
9:00 10. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: The Regular City Council meeting is shown live on AT&T Tualatin
Valley, Channel 22/28, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast:
Wednesday
1:00 a.m. on Channel 22/28
Thursday
7:00 p.m. on Channel 21/30
Friday
1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Channel 21/30
Friday
7:00 p.m. on Channel 22/28
Saturday
1:00 a.m. on Channel 22
NOTE: Videotapes of regularly scheduled City Council meetings from the first and third
Tuesdays of the month, are available for checkout at the Lake Oswego Library in IIIc
Reference section.
City Council Meeting
September 18, 2001
Page 4 of 4
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager 1-0
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 18 September 2001 - Supplemental Agenda Materials
DATE: 17 September 2001
Attached are supplemental items for Tuesday's meeting:
♦ Resolution 01-75: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
expressing its sympathy for the victims and families of the 11 September 2001
terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania
♦ Resolution 01-76: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
expressing its support of President George W. Bush in his stated intent to rid the
world of terrorism
♦ Revised Joint Library Task Force Charge Statement (Revisions are
underlined)
♦ Mayor's nominations to "Unsung Heroes" Selection Committee
Attachments
RESOLUTION O1-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
EXPRESSING ITS SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF THE
11 SEPTEMBER 2001 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN NEW YORK CITY,
WASHINGTON, DC AND PENNSYLVANIA
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, 11 September 2001, terrorists attacks in New York City and
Washington DC killed thousands of American civilians and military personnel who
were merely carrying out their daily work duties; and
WHEREAS, another attack was avoided by the heroic efforts of the now deceased
passengers on United Flight 93, which crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside; and
WHEREAS, this tragic loss of life included public safety employees who were
attempting to assist victims of these violent acts; and
WHEREAS, these deaths have brought grief to the survivors and friends of the victims,
as well as to a larger, extended Americanfamily; and
WHEREAS, these horrific events on the eastern shores of this great country of the
United States of America have aroused anguish and pain for the citizens of the
community of Lake Oswego;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego, Oregon expresses, on behalf of the citizens of this community, its deepest
sorrow for the loss of our fellow countrymen and citizens of the world in New Yorks
City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvanians a result of the activity of terrorists and *Ca�bC xlr4w
expresses its sorrow, condolences, and sympathy for and to the survivors of the victims.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 18th day of September 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS FORM:
David Powell, City Attorn y
RESOLUTION 01-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IN HIS STATED
INTENT TO RID THE WORLD OF TERRORISM
WHEREAS, on 11 September 2001, the United States of America was attacked by
terrorists in New York City and Washington, DC; and
WHEREAS, these acts have resulted in the deaths of civilians and military personnel;
and
WHEREAS, President George W. Bush and members of his cabinet have received the
support of the United States Congress for undertaking actions against terrorist groups;
and
WHEREAS, the President has stated his intent to rid the world of terrorism;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego does hereby express its support for President George W. Bush in his
efforts to make the United States and the world a safer place. The life of no American
citizen can be considered safe if activities such as those of 11 September 2001 continue
uncontested on Americans.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 18th day of September 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO
David Powell, City Attorney
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 29, 2002
The Honorable Judie Hammerstad
Mayor
City of Oswego
Post Office Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034-0369
Dear Mayor Hammerstad:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your organization's
resolution. I appreciate hearing from Americans across the
country, and I value your input.
Best wishes.
Sinc
W. Bush
380 "A" AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 369
LAKE OSWEGO,
OREGON 97034
(503)635-0213
FA,)C =503) 697-6594
%16*,vOR* i.oswego.or.us
rL'CY L HAMMERSTAD,
MAYOR
,GAY GRAHAM,
COUNCILOR
;,vX IiOFFMAN,
COUNCILOR
ELLIE McPEAK,
COUNCILOR
16 October 2001
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed are resolutions passed by the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego Oregon expressing our sympathy for the victims, families and
friends of the terrorist attacks on September 11. We have also enclosed
a resolution expressing our support of President George W. Bush for his
intent to rid the world of terrorism.
This tragic event has affected the lives of all of us. The Lake Oswego
KARL ROHDE, City Council felt that an expression of sympathy and support was a
COUNCILOR small, but appropriate way that we could show our city's feelings
concerning the event and our optimistic outlook for the future.
BILL SCHOEN,
COUNCILOR Sincerely,
IUHN TURCHI,
COUNCILOR %
Judie Hammerstad
Mayor
JH/sms
Enclosures
MACCC0MMUNi(AJi0Nr-, CONI Nil i,,ioN
} REPRESENTING BANKS. BEAVERTON. CORNELIUS. DURHAM FOREST GROVE, GASTON HILLSBORO, KING CITY, LAKE OSWEGO MILWAUKIE. NORTH PLAINS, RIVERGROVI. TIGARD, TUALATIN AND WASHINGTON COUNTY
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission
Recommendation to Member Jurisdictions
AT&T Upgrade Extension Request
August 2001
At their August 22, 2001, meeting, the Board of the Metropolitan Area Communications
Commission (MACC) unanimously recommended that the MACC member jurisdictions
consent to the request from AT&T to extend their current deadline for completion of the
residential system upgrade.
Background — The MACC member jurisdictions granted TCI of Tualatin Valley Inc.,
whose parent is now AT&T Corporation, a nonexclusive fifteen -year Franchise on
February 1, 1999. That Franchise requires AT&T to complete the upgrade of both the
residential cable system and the Public Communications Network (PCN) by no later
than January 31, 2002. Following the grant of the Franchise, AT&T began upgrading
the system starting from their Headend in Beaverton and heading west towards
Hillsboro. Currently AT&T has upgraded approximately 40% of the MACC system
including almost all of Beaverton, Aloha and, and portions of Hillsboro.
In January 2001, AT&T began slowing its upgrade construction and further notified
MACC in February that all upgrade construction had stopped. According to AT&T,
construction stopped due to severe financial problems experienced by the company
(and other telecommunications providers) as a result of the downturn of the economy,
and a significant drop in AT&T stock value. At that time, AT&T representative began
informal discussions with MACC staff about an extension of the upgrade deadline.
In June 2001, the MACC Board formally authorized MACC staff to negotiate an
Upgrade Extension Agreement (Agreement). The final Agreement with AT&T was
presented to the Board at the August 22nd meeting and following a public hearing, the
MACC Board voted to forward their recommendation to the jurisdictions. A copy of the
proposed Agreement is enclosed along with an Executive Summary.
Action Requested by Jurisdictions -- This Agreement requires an amendment to your
Franchise with AT&T and must be passed by all MACC member jurisdictions in order to
become effective. A proposed draft ordinance to make this amendment has been
provided to your jurisdiction.
What Happens If the Agreement is Approved? — If all jurisdictions approve, the
Amendment will become effective when AT&T fulfills the acceptance requirements
listed in the ordinance. AT&T would.
f I
• Have until July 31, 2002, to complete the actually upgrade construction on the
residential cable system;
• Be required to compete this upgrade on a prescribed timeline based on numbers of
homes passed;
• Cooperate with MACC's efforts to audit and certify the upgrade;
• Face significant fines and remedies if they fail to complete the requirements of this
Agreement, including the potential for a reduction in the term of their Franchise, as
well as post a $2 -million dollar letter of credit and a $12 -million performance bond.
• Provide additional benefits to non -upgraded subscribers, including a monthly credit,
rate freeze, and pay-per-view coupons.
• Complete the upgrade of the PCN on schedule, by January 31, 2002.
What happens if the Agreement is not approved? — If any of the MACC jurisdictions
do not approve the Agreement, it would be defeated for all the jurisdictions. MACC
staff and our consultants do not believe that AT&T will complete the upgrade of the
residential cable system by the January 31, 2002,deadline. MACC would impose
$2,000 per day fines until both upgrades are completed. AT&T would have little
incentive to complete the upgrades, and subscribers and PCN users would have little
certainty as to when the upgrades would be completed.
We urge you to support the recommendation of the MACC Board of Commissioners.
We would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Enclosures: Executive Summary of Extension Agreement
AT&T Upgrade Extension Request — Questions & Answers
Proposed Extension Agreement
Model Ordinance for Jurisdictions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MACC/AT&T UPGRADE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
(Prepared by MACC staff)
The following summarizes the highlights of the MACC/AT&T Upgrade Extension
Agreement. The MACC Board of Commissioners recommends your approval.
► System Upgrades
Residential Cable System - AT&T will be provided an additional 6 months to
complete upgrade construction of the residential cable system. The current deadline
is January 31, 2002; the new deadline would be July 31, 2002.
Public Communications Network — The PCN will be completed by the original
deadline of January 31, 2002, with no extension. All current PCN users will be
upgraded and migrated to the new PCN.
► "Considerations" from AT&T for the Extension:
AT&T will provide cable subscribers, MACC, PCN users, and NCA (Tualatin Valley
Community Access) - MACC's PEG Access provider, with the following
considerations:
Residential Subscribers who are not upgraded by the original February 1, 2002,
deadline shall receive:
No rate increases for cable service until they are upgraded, and
$0.30 credit on their cable bills for each month they are not upgraded, and
Coupons worth $16,00 for AT&T Pay -per -View movies or special events.
PCN users will not have to pay the new, higher rates for the upgraded PCN until at
least 50% of a user agency's sites are migrated to the new PCN.
PEG Access (TVCA,) shall be provided:
Up to $5,000 to publicize NCA channel line-up changes resulting from the
upgrade;
Up to $5,000 to print and insert a "bill stuffier" in cable bills about their services;
and
$58,000 toward the costs to relocate TVCA's playback center to a new location.
MACC Subscriber Notices will be included in the bill of each AT&T cable subscriber
during the 1st quarter of 2002 at no cost. These informational "bill stuffers" will be
Executive Summary
pg. 2
included in bills in future years, with AT&T paying all costs except those for
production.
Complimentary (a) -Home Accounts (or the equivalent) will be provided to MACC.
These 30 high-speed Internet @Home accounts will be distributed among the MACC
jurisdictions for use in senior centers, libraries, or other public facilities. The MACC
Board, in consultation with the jurisdictions, will determine use of the accounts.
MACC Costs for extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses, such as outside legal and
technical assistance, will be paid by a $50,000 payment from AT&T.
► Penalties:
If AT&T fails to meet the new deadlines and requirements of the new agreement,
MACC will impose:
• An uncontested $50,000 fine, plus $1,000 daily penalties if AT&T fails to meet
the PCN upgrade deadline and a specified portion of the upgrade of the
residential system by January 31, 2002;
• An uncontested $100,000 fine, plus daily $1,000 penalties if AT&T fails to meet
the July 31, 2002, deadline for completion of the residential upgrade;
• $5,000 per month penalties paid to affected PCN users if AT&T misses a site
upgrade deadline and the grace period; and
• $250 daily fines for failing to provide MACC with reports on time.
• If AT&T fails to complete the system upgrade and other requirements of the
agreement by September 30, 2002, MACC is authorized to shorten AT&T's
current Franchise Agreement term by three years.
► Performance Guarantees:
To ensure their performance, AT&T will provide MACC with the following:
• A $2,000,000 letter of credit that MACC may access when imposing fines, and
• A $12,000,000 performance bond to secure completion of the requirements.
► General Terms & Conditions:
• All MACC member jurisdictions must approve this agreement for it to become
effective.
• The MACC Commission shall determine use of all funds paid to MACC.
• This agreement is binding on any company that assumes ownership or control
of AT&T.
AT&T Upgrade Extension Request
Questions & Answers
(Prepared by MACC Staff)
Q. 1 What assurances do we have that AT&T will complete this upgrade by the
end of the extension period?
A. AT&T proposed this timeline to MACC. Should they fail to make their self-
imposed deadline, MACC will impose significant fines and other remedies, up to,
and including reducing the term of their Franchise.
Q. 2 Why are they upgrading the PCN on time and seeking an extension for the
upgrade of the residential cable system?
A. The major construction work that is taking place for the upgrade of the residential
cable system is the placement of a fiber backbone throughout the Franchise area.
Since the PCN is carried on that same fiber backbone, it is easier to upgrade the
200 PCN sites to fiber during the next several months while this backbone is being
built. Full upgrade of the residential cable system, in addition to the fiber
backbone, requires changing out thousands of electronic devices and power
supplies above and under streets that serve over 100,000 subscriber homes. This
work will be done from January through July of 2002.
Q. 3 How much does this upgrade costs AT&T?
A. Between $40-50 million dollars.
Q,4 When will my jurisdiction be upgraded?
A. Since AT&T is still designing the upgrade of about half of the system, AT&T has
not established a schedule for construction in specific jurisdictions. AT&T did
commit to the MACC Board to provide an estimated completion schedule, by
geographic area, by January 1, 2002.
Q. 5 Is the MACC area the only one affected by AT&T's financial problems?
A. No, AT&T has delayed or stopped system upgrades and other capital investment
across the country. MACC is the only jurisdictions in the northwest (and in most of
the country) where construction will continue if the upgrade extension is granted.
Q. 6 Since AT&T will be compressing this upgrade into a few months, will
citizens experience a lot of additional construction disruption in local streets
and neighborhoods?
Q&A
pg. 2
A. No. Since this is an upgrade of the cable system and not a complete rebuild,
citizens should not experience a significant increase in right-of-way activity during
the next twelve months. Old underground cable will not be dug up, but will be
"pulled out" and replaced by fiber. Most of the aerial cable in neighborhoods will
remain, and only the power supplies and amplifiers attached to it will be replaced.
Q. 7 Excite@Home is having financial trouble -- what happens to
AT&T's @Home service if they go out of business?
A. Excite@Home is the content provider for the @Home service used by AT&T
(AT&T owns a substantial amount of the company). AT&T assures us that it will
continue to offer @Home service even if F_xcite@Home ceases operations.
Q. 8 What are "passings"?
A Passing refers to the homes passed by the cable system or plant. In the MACC
service area there are about 160,000 passings, or homes passed by cable plant.
Only about 64% of homes passed by the cable system subscriber to cable
service. There are just over 100,000 cable subscribers in the MACC system.
Q. 9 What is the Public Communications Network?
A. The Public Communications Network (known as the PCN) is a separate cable
system owned by AT&T that provides high-speed communications among local
governments and schools for a fee in the MACC area. The PCN currently
connects about 200 user sites and is used by agencies for high-speed data,
lnternetlernail service, and video services. The PCN is being rebuilt into an all
fiber network as part of AT&T's upgrade.
If you have additional questions, please contact Bruce Crest, MACC Administrator at 503-
645-7365 x 200, or Sarah Hackett, Senior Communications Analyst at x 206.
MODEL ORDINANCE FOR USE BY MACC JURISDICTIONS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE [CITY/COUNTY] OF APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT GRANTED TO TCI CABLEVISON OF TUALATIN
VALLEY BY EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE REQUIRED SYSTEM UPGRADE
WHEREAS, in 1980 the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (hereinafter
"MACC") was formed by Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter "IGA") to enable
its member jurisdictions to work cooperatively and jointly on communications issues, in
particular the joint franchising of cable services and the common administration and
regulation of such franchise agreements, and the [City/County] of _ is a
member of MACC; and
WHEREAS. the IGA authorizes MACC and its jurisdictions to grant one or more
nonexclusive franchise agreements for the construction, operation and maintenance
of a cable service system within the combined boundaries of the member jurisdictions;
and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires that each member jurisdiction to be served by the
proposed grantee must formally approve any joint cable service franchise agreement
and any amendment thereof; and
WHEREAS, TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley, Inc., is the grantee under a Cable
Television Services Agreement approved by MACC and its member jurisdictions,
dated February 1, 1999, hereinafter "Franchise"; and
WHEREAS. the Franchise was transferred with the consent of MACC and its member
jurisdictions to TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley, Inc. whose parent company is AT&T
Corporation (hereinafter "AT&T"), which is the current operator; and
WHEREAS, the [City/County] approved the Franchise by Ordinance No. ; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise requires an upgrade to the residential Cable System and
the Public Communications Network and provides deadlines for completion of those
upgrades on or before January 31, 2002; and
WHEREAS. AT&T has notified MACC and its member jurisdictions that it will be
unable to complete the required system upgrades by the deadline established in the
Franchise due to financial constraints; and
WHEREAS, the MACC Board, by Resolution 2001- 12 adopted on the 22nd day of
August, 2001, recommended that affected member jurisdictions grant an extension of
Model Ordinance
pg. 2
the deadline for completion of the residential Cable System upgrade, with conditions,
and contingent on approval by all MACC member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the [City Council/Board of Commissioners] finds that approval of the
recommended extension is in the best interest of the [City/County] and its citizens,
provided that the conditions required in the negotiated "Upgrade Extension
Agreement", attached hereto as Exhibit A, are met.
NOW THEREFORE,
THE [CITY COUNCIL/COUNTY BOARD] ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
[NOTE: consult local charter for correct ordaining clause]
Section 1. Agreement Approved.
The Upgrade Extension Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by this reference, is hereby approved, subject to all the terms and conditions
contained therein.
Section 2. Conditions.
The Upgrade Extension Agreement shall not take effect until such time as each of the
following have occurred:
a. All conditions precedent recited in the Agreement have been met; and
b. AT&T has paid to MACC the $50,000 to cover its costs, as required by
Section IV.A of the Agreement; and
c. AT&T has provided the letter of credit and performance bond required by
Sections VIA and VI.B of the Agreement; and,
d. AT&T has caused its duly authorized representative to execute the
Agreement as written.
[First reading, second reading, signatures in accordance with each member
jurisdiction's charter and code]
C \SH-Docs\AT&T Reg ulation\Extension\Materia ls\Upgrade Extension Model Ordinance.doc
EXHIBIT A.
MACC - AT&T
UPGRADE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
Recitals
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Area
Communications Commission (hereinafter "MACC") and TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley,
Inc., whose parent company is TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc.;
WHEREAS, MACC member jurisdictions and TCI Cablevision entered into a Cable
Television Services Agreement effective November 1, 1999 (hereinafter "Franchise"); and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was transferred with the consent of MACC and its member
jurisdictions to AT&T, Inc. (hereinafter "AT&T"), which is the current operator; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise requires an upgrade to the residential Cable System and the
Public Communications Network and provides deadlines for completions of those upgrades
on or before January 31, 2002; and
WHEREAS, AT&T has notified MACC and its member jurisdictions that it will be unable to
complete the required system upgrades by the deadline established in the Franchise due to
financial constraints; and
WHEREAS, MACC is willing to grant an extension of the deadline for completion of the
residential Cable System upgrade without otherwise limiting its rights and remedies under
the Franchise, provided certain assurances and considerations are obtained from AT&T in
the public interest and contingent on approval by its member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the following conditions precedent have been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as set forth below.
Conditions Precedent
In all cases where requirements of this Agreement predate the date when this Agreement is
approved by the parties. it shall be a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this
Agreement that such requirements have been timely met.
All MACC member jurisdictions must approve this Agreement
I. SYSTEM UPGRADE
A. This Agreement provides for an extension of the deadline for construction of the
upgrade of the residential Cable System as required in Section 11.1A.2 of the
Franchise (on or before January 31, 2002) to July 31, 2002. AT&T shall have
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
C. 1) Segment 3: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with a preliminary
plan, shown on a monthly basis, for the passings to be constructed during the
upgrade extension period (February 1, 2002 through July 31, 2002).
2) By November 1, 2001, AT&T must provide MACC with the final build schedule,
shown on a monthly basis, for the time period of the upgrade extension.
3) By January 15, 2002, AT&T shall provide written documentation of its readiness to
complete Segment 3 construction. Such documentation shall demonstrate, at a
minimum, that at least the following are substantially completed by this date: a) the
fiber backbone is in place; b) any needed power supplies have been permitted and
placed (excepting electronics); and c) underground and over -lash construction
permits are in place.
This report shall also show the extent of replacement of the existing coaxial system
during upgrade activities for Segments 1 and 2.
III. REPORTING
AT&T shall provide MACC with progress report each month throughout the upgrade
extension period for the following:
A. Residential Cable System
1) Monthly reports: AT&T shall provide MACC with monthly build schedule progress
reports for both the original upgrade period (Segment 2) and the upgrade extension
period (Segment 3) by the 10tt' day of each month, beginning in the first month after
execution of this Agreement. These reports shall include a written narrative report
detailing the nodes constructed during the prior month.
2) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice that the Segment 2 requirements for
the upgraded residential Cable System have been constructed on or before
February 1, 2002. This notice must state that upgrade construction is completed and
the Cable System is in substantial compliance with the Franchise and this
Agreement for a minimum of 22,000 residential passings.
3) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice of its completion of construction of
Segment 3 -- upgrade of the remainder of the residential Cable System -- on or
before August 1, 2002. This notice must state that upgrade construction is
completed and the Cable System is in substantial compliance with the Franchise and
this Agreement for all residential passings in the Franchise Area.
B. PCN
1) By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with the final build schedule which
shows, on a monthly basis, upgrade of the PCN.
3
CORRECTiC)N
T"HIS DOCUMENT
HAS RIATHOrl"OGRAPHED
ASSI-JRl"
EXHIBIT A.
MACC - AT&T
UPGRADE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
Recitals
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Area
Communications Commission (hereinafter "MACC") and TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley,
Inc., whose parent company is TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc.;
WHEREAS, MACC member jurisdictions and TCI Cablevision entered into a Cable
Television Services Agreement effective November 1, 1999 (hereinafter "Franchise")*, and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was transferred with the consent of MACC and its member
jurisdictions to AT&T, Inc. (hereinafter "AT&T"), which is the current operator; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise requires an upgrade to the residential Cable System and the
Public Communications Network and provides deadlines for completions of those upgrades
on or before January 31, 2002; and
WHEREAS, AT&T has notified MACC and its member jurisdictions that it will be unable to
complete the required system upgrades by the deadline established in the Franchise due to
financial constraints; and
WHEREAS, MACC is willing to grant an extension of the deadline for completion of the
residential Cable System upgrade without otherwise limiting its rights and remedies under
the Franchise, provided certain assurances and considerations are obtained from AT&T in
the public interest and contingent on approval by its member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the following conditions precedent have been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as set forth below.
Conditions Precedent
In all cases where requirements of this Agreement predate the date when this Agreement is
approved by the parties, it shall be a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this
Agreement that such requirements have been timely met.
All MACC member jurisdictions must approve this Agreement
I. SYSTEM UPGRADE
A. This Agreement provides for an extension of the deadline for construction of the
upgrade of the residential Cable System as required in Section 11.1A.2 of the
Franchise (on or before January 31, 2002) to July 31, 2002. AT&T shall have
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8..27-01
completed its obligations for the upgrade of the residential Cable System if MACC
has certified completion of the following through audits as provided in this
Agreement:
1) The upgraded Cable System is constructed, and the physical plant is in
substantial compliance with the Franchise for a minimum of 22,000 passings to be
constructed between April 1, 2001, and February 1, 2002.
2) The upgraded Cable System is constructed, defined as completion of building and
capable of carrying the signals it is designed to carry, and the physical plant is in
substantial compliance with the Franchise and this Agreement, by July 31, 2002; and
3) The upgraded Cable System is proofed and is in substantial compliance with all
applicable FCC and other pertinent standards contained in the Franchise and this
Agreement by August 31, 2002; and
4) Upgraded video cable services are activated and available to subscribers, and in
compliance with all pertinent standards contained in the Franchise by September 30,
2002.
B. This Agreement does not extend the deadline for upgrade of the Public
Communications Network (PCN). All original RCN sites, and those identified in
Attachment A., shall be upgraded and migrated to the new PCN as defined in this
Agreement by February 1, 2002. This does not affect the PCN capacity
requirements set forth in Section 11.2 B. of the Franchise. AT&T shall have
completed its obligations for upgrade of the PCN per Section 11.2 of the Franchise if
each of the following occurs by the following deadlines subject to MACC's
certification and approval following audits as described in this Agreement:
1) All of the network has been upgraded to fiber for the new PCN; and
2) All user sites with service contracts are connected and migrated to the new PCN
per Section 11.2 A. 3) of the Franchise unless AT&T is unable to migrate the user to
the upgraded PCN due to the actions of the PCN user.
II. UPGRADE SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
A. Segment 1: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with a current report
showing where construction has been completed for the upgrade of residential
passings.
B. Segment 2: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with an advance
build schedule for residential passings for this construction period. Between April 1,
2001 and February 1, 2002, AT&T must complete construction of a minimum of
22,000 passings -
2
Upgrade Extension Agreement
B-27-01
C. 1) Segment 3: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with a preliminary
plan, shown on a monthly basis, for the passings to be constructed during the
upgrade extension period (February 1, 2002 through July 31, 2002).
2) By November 1, 2001, AT&T must provide MACC with the final build schedule,
shown on a monthly basis, for the time period of the upgrade extension.
3) By January 15, 2002, AT&T shall provide written documentation of its readiness to
complete Segment 3 construction. Such documentation shall demonstrate, at a
minimum, that at least the following are substantially completed by this date: a) the
fiber backbone is in place; b) any needed power supplies have been permitted and
placed (excepting electronics); and c) underground and over -lash construction
permits are in place.
This report shall also show the extent of replacement of the existing coaxial system
during upgrade activities for Segments 1 and 2.
Ill. REPORTING
AT&T shall provide MACC with progress report each month throughout the upgrade
extension period for the following:
A. Residential Cable System
1) Monthly reports: AT&T shall provide MACC with monthly build schedule progress
reports for both the original upgrade period (Segment 2) and the upgrade extension
period (Segment 3) by the 10t" day of each month, beginning in the first month after
execution of this Agreement. These reports shall include a written narrative report
detailing the nodes constructed during the prior month.
2) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice that the Segment 2 requirements for
the upgraded residential Cable System have been constructed on or before
February 1, 2002. This notice must state that upgrade construction is completed and
the Cable System is in substantial compliance with the Franchise and this
Agreement for a minimum of 22,000 residential passings.
3) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice of its completion of construction of
Segment 3 -- upgrade of the remainder of the residential Cable System -- on or
before August 1, 2002. This notice must state that upgrade construction is
completed and the Cable System is in substantial compliance with the Franchise and
this Agreement for all residential passings in the Franchise Area.
B. PCN
1) By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with the final build schedule which
shows, on a monthly basis, upgrade of the PCN.
3
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
2) AT&T shall provide MACC with monthly build schedule progress reports by the
10th day of each month, beginning in the first month after execution of this
Agreement. These reports shall include a written narrative describing the upgrade
construction on the PCN and a list of sites that have been connected and migrated,
as defined in this Agreement, to the upgraded PCN fiber during the prior month. The
first report provided shall also document PCN upgrade construction from August 1,
2001 forward to the date of this report.
3) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice of its completion of construction of
the upgrade of the PCN on or before February 1, 2002. This notice must state that
the PCN fiber upgrade is complete, that all user sites are connected and migrated,
as defined in this Agreement, to the new PCN, and that all users have signed a PCN
Acceptance Agreement.
C. Effect of completion notices
The completion notices from AT&T are administrative in nature. Failure by AT&T to
provide the required completion notices shall not result in any modification to the
construction requirements otherwise provided for herein.
IV. CONSIDERATION FOR EXTENSION
A. MACC Costs: AT&T shall provide MACC with $50,000 upon execution of this
Agreement. This amount is estimated to cover extraordinary costs for legal,
consulting, and other outside or out of pocket expenses related to the negotiation,
execution, and enforcement of AT&T's request for an extension of the upgrade
deadline. MACC shall provide AT&T with an itemized list of expenses after MACC
staff certifies that the upgrade is complete.
B. MACC Subscriber Notices
AT&T shall provide MACC with one complimentary bill stuffer in the first year of this
Agreement to allow MACC to notify subscribers of its services and their rights as
cable subscribers. For the first year of the requirement, AT&T shall provide for
production, insertion, and incremental postage at no charge to MACC. In
subsequent years, AT&T shall provide MACC with the right to include bill stuffers
and shall pay the costs for insertion and incremental postage; MACC shall be
responsible for production costs. The bill stuffier shall be included in subscribers' bills
during the first quarter of each calendar year (.Januar), 1 — March 31), beginning in
2002- AT&T shall be provided an opportunity to review and approve the content of
these bill stuffers. Bill stuffers must conform to AT&T's mailing requirements.
C. c@Home Accounts: AT&T shall provide MACC with 30 complimentary @Home
service accounts (including modems, standard installations, and monthly service), or
other substantially equivalent service, over the life of the Franchise. MACC shall
give AT&T thirty (30) days advance notice for such installations and AT&T shall be
required to provide them only in areas where these services are available. MACC
shall designate which agency sites shall receive these modems, installation and
service. AT&T shall be allowed to approve the sites selected for these services to
4
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
assure that none could be used for commercial users. Selected sites will be
provided with @Home service as it is available as of the effective date of this
Agreement, or with substantially equivalent service as it is available over the life of
the Franchise. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit AT&T from requiring
selected sites to enter into standard @Home service agreements.
D. Residential Subscribers
1) Subscribers who have not been provided upgraded video services by February 1,
2002, shall receive a $0.30 credit on their February bill and on each subsequent bill
until such subscriber is able to receive the upgraded video services. MACC shall be
allowed to review and comment on the descriptions of such credits on subscriber
bills.
2) AT&T shall not impose any rate increases for Basic, Expanded Basic, or
Standard video cable services on a subscriber until that subscriber is upgraded, and
services are activated and available to that subscriber. This provision applies from
the date of the execution of this Agreement until MACC has certified that the
upgrade is complete.
3) On February 1, 2002, AT&T shall provide all non -upgraded subscribers with
coupon(s) worth a minimum of $16.00 toward Pay -Per -View or other enhanced
services.
4) All credits shall be provided only to "basic service customers" -- defined as an
individual receiving a bill from AT&T for the provision of cable services to its
household, not including "bulk -billed" and commercial customers.
E. PEG
1) AT&T shall reimburse the Designated Access Provider for costs to publicize and
notify PEG users and subscribers of channel line-up changes, not to exceed $5,000.
2) AT&T shall cover all of the costs for printing one bill stuffier, for the Designated
Access Provider, including the costs of insertion and any incremental postage costs,
not to exceed $5,000. Bill stuffers must conform to AT&T's mailing requirements.
3) The deadline requirement for relocation of the headend of the Designated Access
Provider (Section 9.3.D of the Franchise) is extended to January 31, 2002, and
AT&T shall subsidize this relocation amount up to $58,000 for one relocation. The
Designated Access Provider shall pay all additional costs of this relocation. MACC
shall notify AT&T by August 22, 2001, whether the Designated Access Provider has
indicated that they want this location to be built using analog or digital equipment.
F. PCN
PCN rates for any agency shall remain at the "legacy level" until a minimum of 50% of
that agency's sites are connected and operating on the new PCN.
5
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
V. AUDITS
A. AT&T shall facilitate up to three (3) audits of construction, activation, and certification
requirements of the upgraded residential system by MACC or its designee, as
described herein. In addition, AT&T shall facilitate additional audits and interim
progress evaluations performed by MACC or its designee on both the residential
Cable System and the PCN regarding the commitments of this Agreement. These
evaluations shall be conducted between the date of execution of this Agreement and
the deadlines specified for construction completion. The parties agree that checklists
for the residential Cable System and PCN, Attachments B. and C., will be used as
part of the audit process.
B. AT&T shall make records available consistent with Section 7.1. of the Franchise, but
with no cure period for any violation.
C. MACC or its designee shall perform an audit within 14 calendar days following the
deadline for upgrade construction of 22,000 passings of the residential Cable
System and upgrade of the PCN unless unusual circumstances or a force majeure
occurrence prevents or delays the audit. Thereafter, MACC shall certify completion
of this segment of the upgrade within 14 days of receipt of any clarification, follow-
up, or other information needed from AT&T.
D. MACC or its designee shall perform an audit within 14 calendar days following the
deadline for upgrade of the PCN unless unusual circumstances or a force majeure
occurrence prevents or delays the audit. Thereafter, MACC shall certify completion
of the PCN upgrade within 14 days of receipt of any clarification, follow-up, or other
information needed from AT&T.
E. MACC or its designee shall perform an audit within 14 calendar days following the
deadline for upgrade construction of the remainder of the residential Cable System
unless unusual circumstances or a force majeure occurrence prevents or delays the
audit. Thereafter, MACC shall certify completion of this segment of the upgrade
within 14 days of receipt of any clarification, follow-up, or other information needed
from AT&T.
Vl. REMEDIES AND PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
A. Concurrent with its written acceptance of this Agreement, AT&T shall provide
MACC with a $2,000,000 irrevocable Letter of Credit, in a form satisfactory to
MACC, to be available for payment of fines that may be imposed under this
Agreement and to otherwise secure AT&T's performance of its obligations under
this Agreement. Upon AT&T meeting all of the requirements of this Agreement,
MACC will release the Letter of Credit.
B. Concurrent with its written acceptance of this Agreement, AT&T shall provide
MACC with a performance bond, in a form satisfactory to MACC, in the amount
of $12,000,000 to assure its completion of the requirements of this Agreement.
Ci
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
AT&T may retain its existing bond as required by Section 5.5 A. of the Franchise
in partial satisfaction of this requirement. When MACC certifies that AT&T has
fully performed all of its obligations under this Agreement, this bond shall be
cancelled provided the $1,000,000 bond, as required by the Franchise, is in
place.
C. Residential Cable System
1) If AT&T fails to provide to MACC the required build schedule progress reports
on a monthly basis for the upgrade of the residential system (as required in III. A.
1), III. B. 1), III. B. 2) or the required documentation due under II C. by the due
dates for those reports and documents, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested
fine of $250 per day for every day each item is late to MACC and no cure period
is allowed.
2) If AT&T fails to meet the monthly cumulative build schedule requirements for
the residential Cable System, fines shall accrue at $10,000 per month until
cumulative construction requirements are met.
3) If AT&T fails to complete construction of the residential upgrade by July 31,
2002, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested fine of $100,000.
4) In addition, AT&T shall pay daily fines established in Section 15.2 of the
Franchise for each day thereafter until MACC certifies that the upgrade of the
residential Cable System is completed.
5) The effective date for imposition of any fines for delay in the total upgrade of
the residential Cable System shall not begin prior to 14 calendar days after July
31, 2002.
D. Public Communications Network
1) If AT&T fails to provide to MACC the required monthly build schedule
progress reports on the upgrade of Vie PCN, as required in III. B. 1), by the due
dates for those reports, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested fine of $250 per
day for every day each report is late to MACC and no cure period is allowed.
2) If any of the original PCN sites, or those identified on Attachment A., are not
upgraded and migrated within 30 days after the timeline date proposed in the
build schedule, AT&T shall pay an uncontested fine of $5,000 for each affected
site. These fines shall be delivered to MACC, payable to the specific agency.
Additional $5,000 fines shall be delivered to MACC, payable to these agencies,
every thirty (30) days thereafter that the specific site is not upgraded.
E. Combined Penalty — Segment 2 and PCN
1) Consistent with this Agreement, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested fine of
$50,000 if AT&T fails to complete any of the following: upgrade and migration of
7
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
all original PCN sites, PCN site identified on Exhibit A, or Segment 2 of the
residential Cable System on or before January 31, 2002.
2) In addition, AT&T shall pay daily fines established in Section 15.2 of the
Franchise each day thereafter until all PCN sites are upgraded.
F. Combined Penalty -- Segment 3 and PCN
If the upgrade construction, as required by the Franchise and this Agreement, is
not completed as certified by MACC by September 30, 2002, the term of the
Franchise shall be reduced by three (3) years per Section 19.11 of the Franchise
without prior notice to AT&T.
VII. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. The MACC Commission shall determine the use of all funds paid to MACC.
B. Terms of this Agreement are contingent on approval by all MACC jurisdictions.
C. Existing Franchise provisions remain in effect in addition to those specified in this
Agreement.
D. This Agreement shall be binding on AT&T's successors in interest and assigns.
It shall be a condition of any request for approval of a transfer of the Franchise or
Cable System or change of control of AT&T that the transferee or new controlling
entity specifically accept and agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement
in writing.
E. The remedies provided under this Agreement and under the Franchise are
cumulative. Pursuit of one remedy shall not preclude pursuit of any other
available remedy.
The remedies provided under this Agreement shall be subject to the process
otherwise required under Franchise Section 15 unless this Agreement provides
for an uncontested fine or waives a cure period. In the event of a failure by
AT&T to complete construction as required by this Agreement, MACC may, in its
discretion, draw on the performance bond or letter of credit to secure completion.
F. Payment of all fines due under this Agreement shall occur within thirty (30)
calendar days of the date notice or demand for payment by MACC is received by
AT&T. "Payment" shall mean receipt by MACC, at MACC's office, of guaranteed
funds in the full amount due.
G. Throughout the term of this Agreement, AT&T shall maintain and file with MACC
a designated legal or local address for the service of notices by mail. A copy of
all notices from MACC to AT&T shall be sent, postage prepaid, to such address
and such notices shall be effective upon the date of mailing. At the effective
date of this Agreement, these addresses are:
Cs3
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
(1) Senior Vice -President
AT&T Broadband
3075 NE Sandy Blvd
Portland, Oregon 97232
(2) Legal Department
22025 30"' Avenue SE
Bothell, Washington 98021
All notices to be sent by AT&T to MACC under this Agreement shall be sent,
postage prepaid, and such notices shall be effective upon the date of mailing. At the
effective date of this Agreement, this address is:
Administrator
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission
1815 NW 169th Place, Suite 6020
Beaverton, OR 97006-4886
9
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
ATTACHMENT A
Future PCN Sites
Banks City Hall 100 S. Main Banks
Pacific University 2043 College Way Forest Grove
Gales Creek School (FDSD) 9125 NW Sergeant Gales Creek
10
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
ATTACHMENT B
MACC — AT&T Residential Cable System Upgrade Audit Checklist
At Headend, Master Hub, or Hub:
1. Are all subscriber video programming services specified in either the franchise or
AT&T's product and services literature available at the Headend?
2. Are the facilities and equipment at the Headend able to deliver high quality signals
that meet or exceed FCC technical quality standards?
a. Is satellite receive equipment available and functioning at the Headend to
facilitate required services?
b. Is off air receive equipment available and functioning to facilitate required
services?
c. Are modulators/demodulators available and functioning for transmission
of services up to 550 Mhz or above?
d. Is the fiber optic transmission system available and functioning in the
downstream direction to support subscriber video services?
e. Is the required Emergency Alert System available at the Headend?
i. Is it operating within FCC required parameters?
f. Is equipment to facilitate digitally compressed video services available and
functioning at the Headend?
g. Is addressable equipment available and functioning at the Headend to facilitate
required services?
3. Is the return system in place and operating such that it could support two-way high
speed Internet access?
a. Is fiber optic upstream transport equipment available and functioning to facilitate
the return system?
b. Is electronic equipment available and functioning to facilitate upstream
transmission?
11
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
4. Is standby power generating capacity capable of providing at least 12 hours of
emergency operation available at the Headend?
a. Is there a back-up generator?
i. Is it operational?
b. Is there a -48 VDC battery system?
L Is it operational?
5. Is the Headend, Master Hub or Hub grounded in accordance with Code
requirements?
Distribution System:
For all distribution system areas checked. the following specifications shall be met or
exceeded for 95% of the test results:
1. Does the system use a fiber to the neighborhood node architecture?
a. Does each node size equal 1,500 customers or less?
2. Is the location active?
3. Do the system active electronics meet or exceed transport capabilities of 550 MHz?
4. Do the system passive devices meet or exceed transport capabilities of 550 MHz?
5. Does the location meet all required FCC performance parameters in the
downstream direction?
a. Carrier to noise meets or exceeds 43 dB
b. Carrier to coherent distortion meets or exceeds -51 dB
c. In channel frequency response is less than or equal to +/-2 dB
d. Frequency response across the passband (peak to valley) meets or is lower than
13 dB
e. Hum modulation is 3% or less
f. Visual/aural signal level differential is between 10 dB and 17 dB
g. Adjacent channel visual signal level variation is 3 dB or less
12
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
h. All drop locations provide a minimum 3 dB signal level at the end of a 100 -foot
drop
6. Required spectrum is activated in the upstream direction
7. Stand-by powering is available and provides back-up power for two hours or more
8. System converters carry signals in accordance with manufacturers' specifications
with a channel capacity that meets or exceeds 550 Mhz
Physical Plant Characteristics:
For all physical plant checked, the following specifications shall be met or bettered for 95%
of the test results:
1. All equipment is grounded/bonded at pole locations in accordance with Code
requirements.
2. All equipment is grounded/bonded at pedestal locations in accordance with Code
requirements.
3. Aerial plant is in compliance with all applicable National Electric Safety Code and
other pertinent Code requirements.
Note: All system problems found, including those that are evidenced 5% of the time or less
must be promptly corrected so that affected areas of the system will achieve full compliance
with required specifications.
13
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
ATTACHMENT C
MACC — AT&T PCN Audit Checklist
All specifications below are to be completed or met 100% of the time.
At the Headend, Master Hub, or Hubs:
1. Are all active PCN fibers for PCN sites with contracts for service terminated and
spliced at the hubs and Headend?
2. Is ail required equipment available and configured at the Headend and Hub for each
service offered?
a. ATMfT-1
b. ATM/10 Megabit
c. ATM/100 Megabit
d. Gigabit Ethernet
e. Ethernet/10 Megabit
f. Ethernet/100 Megabit
g. Ethernet[T-1
h. Video receive
i. Video receive/transmit
3. For each service contracted for, are required network management/monitoring and
control hardware and software in use and performing satisfactorily?
a. ATMfT-1
b. ATM/10 Megabit
c. ATM/100 Megabit
d. Gigabit Ethernet
e. Ethernet/10 Megabit
f. Ethernet/100 Megabit
g. EthernetfT-1
h. Video receive
i. Video receive/transmit
14
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
4. Is all PCN equipment connected to the UPS or —48 VDC battery system?
5. Is all PCN equipment connected to the back-up generator?
6. Is PCN equipment in a controlled area?
7. Are procedures in place for necessary access by PCN user personnel?
8 Is all PCN equipment properly grounded/bonded at the Headend and Hub?
9. Is the fiber transport system at the Headend and Hub for the PCN operating in both
the upstream and downstream directions?
10. Are all disaster recovery procedures in place at the Headend and Hub for PCN
services?
11 Are all required PCN interconnections routed through the Headend operating?
12. Is the physical plant leaving/entering the Headend and Hub in compliance with all
pertinent NESC and other codes concerning clearances and other pertinent
specifications?
At the Node/Splice Location:
1. Is required initial PCN and excess capacity available at each location?
Z Is the physical plant in compliance with all pertinent code and other requirements at
each location?
Distribution Plant:
Does the PCN plant meet all required NESC and other specifications at the locations
checked'?
15
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
At User Sites with Contracts for Service:
1. Does the PCN drop meet all required physical plant specifications pursuant to the
NESC and other applicable codes?
2. Is the PCN terminated at the user site for contracted services?
3. Is AT&T -supplied transport equipment configured and operating at the user site?
4. Is all transport equipment powered and grounded/bonded at the user site?
5. Are required service levels being provided at each user location for the services the
site has contracted for:
a. ATM/T-1
b. ATM/10 Megabit
C. ATM/100 Megabit
d. Gigabit Ethernet
e. Ethernet/10 Megabit
f. Ethernet/100 Megabit
g. Ethernet/T-1
h. Video receive
i. Video receive/transmit
6. Can throughput be measured and documented to verify provision of required service
levels?
7. Are users being provided with required PCN performance data and associated
reports?
8 Has the PCN met required network availability parameters at each user location?
9 Are users receiving required service response and required trouble resolution reports
from AT&T?
16
Verizon IASL -- Background information
What is DSL:
High -Speed, Broadband Access: Verizon Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) uses existing
copper telephone wire to provide high -bandwidth services over short distances. Since
DSL rides unused high frequencies available on a standard telephone line, or "local loop,"
it's able to share the same line without interrupting lower frequency voice services.
what's the benefit?
"There's lots of copper: DSL is attractive because copper wire is virtually
everywhere and is already in the wall. There's no need for the disruption of laying an
expensive, unsightly new access infrastructure.
>> No need for a second line: Since DSL operates on an existing phone line without
affecting the user's existing voice telephone service, users don't have to pay the
higher costs — and taxes — for a second line.
>> DSL is relatively inexpensive: The price for DSL is affordable because it uses an
already existing infrastructure. Interstate pricing allows Verizon to provide uniform
pricing and speedier delivery.
>> DSL availability is increasing: DSL is a relatively new service and Verizon is
continually expanding its deployment of DSL to more neighborhoods within our
serving area.
>> Verizon is bringing DSL availability closer to our customers: The range of DSL
is reaching more people because Verizon is finding ways to install the serving
equipment closer to our customers.
>> DSL is an"always on" connection: Continuous high-speed access doesn't effect
the user's existing phone service. One simply "clicks and connects." No more busy
signals or disconnects.
>> DSL Is a dedicated connection, not a party line: From the user's PC to Verizon's
serving equipment, DSL offers a private dedicated connection, not shared with
anyone else.
>> There are different sizes of DSL: Different speeds and configurations of DSL are
available at different price ranges, depending on what the customer wants to do with
the service.
r
Page 2
Quick Facts:
DSL
• Quick Facts:
Verizon DSL Customer in Northwest (OR, WA, ID): More than 50,100
♦ Verizon DSL Customers in OR: More than 16,225
♦ Verizon DSL Customers in Nation: 720,000
♦ Verizon year-end 2001 DSL subscriber target is: 1.2-1.3 million national subscribers
♦ Qualification rate (% of wireline customers who can actually get service): 61%
♦ Average time to provision of service: Varies by market
Provisioning:
Self -Installation introduced within the last year. More than 85% of all Verizon customers
now install their own modems. This has significantly reduced the number of technician
visits to customer premises. Technicians continue to be available, however, to visit
customers to install ethernet cards in PC and inspect the quality of the copper loops.
DSL Demand:
DSL demand is growing dramatically and leading analysts state that the number of DSL
subscribers will outnumber cable modem subscribers by 2003.
Verizon is striving to provide DSL to as many customers as possible. Where DSL is not
provisioned today, alternatives are ISDN and 56kbps modems. Online content is driving
continued demand for DSL. Content developers are realize that more and more people
now have broadband access and as a result, are producing more content for the high
bandwidth user.
Analysts:
Arlen Communications
Gary Arlen, 301-656-7940, Baha na aol.com
Telechoice
Claudia Bacco, 972-874-7791, cbaceo ,telechoice.com
Pat Hurley, 858-831-0396, phurleyE&telecho ice. com
Adam Guglielmo, 303-457-0352, agu lieg_ lmo('aj�telechoicexom
Verizon Online - Pricing
��% Dial -Up Broadband DSL Live! Verizon Online
Search
Products and Services
Internet Access
• Dial-up Access
• ISDN
• DSL
• Benefits of DSL
• DSL Possibilities
• How DSL Works
•
Components _of DSL
• Broadband Mobility
/ • Pricing
• Availability
• How to Order
• Speed Comparison
• FAQ
L_
�G
O System Status e Dial Access Nun t)ers Q SRR Map d Cordacl L.)s
Internet Access - DSL - Pricing
Listed below are the standard Verizon Online DSL prices.
Nlonthl.y Recurring ('harges:
Service 1':tckage
Maximum Download/Upload Connection Speed
Price
Bronze Plus
768 Kbps/
128 Kbps*
$49.95
Enhanced Bronze
1.5m/
128 Kbps
$59.95
Silver
384 Kbps/
384 Kbps
$69.95
Silver Plus
1.5m/
384 Kbps
$79.95
All of the above Verizon Online DSL packages include a 30 -day money -back guarantee. Should you
choose to discontinue the service, we'll refund the first month's charge and the cost of any equipment
you purchased from Verizon (if you've been billed (or it).
Actual speeds will vary. "Throughput (download)speed will be lower than connection speed and will
vary based on a number of factors, including distance from your locations to our central office, the
condition of your phone line and wiring inside your location, network and internet congestion, and the
servers or web sites to which you connect, among other factors.
Non -Recurring Charges (for installation):
http://dsi,verizoii.tict/paiids/residential/dstpricitig2.asp
Page 1 of 2
9/18/01
Verizon Online - Pricing
Verizon Online Charges and other terms
Through 10/31/01 offer includes Modem (up to $200 value); PC camera ($50
value); no activation fees ($50 savings); and no termination fees. 11
Additional Telephone Network Access installation charge and modem purchase apply. For details and
total pricing information, please call 1-888-467-2375.
n
If you are a new customer and you would like to order Verizon Online DSL now, click here, to see if
DSL is available in your area.
Please click here for more information about speed.
Offer by Verizon Online DSL and valid through 10/31 /0l. Service not available to all areas and subject
to circuit availability. Offer includes Verizon Online as the ISP and acceptance of Verizon Online
Terms of Service is required. 30 -day money -back guarantee for DSL. Service provides that, if for any
reason you're not completely satisfied, you may cancel DSL service within 30 days of registration and
receive a refund for any charges you have paid to Verizon Online.The actual throughput (download)
speed that you experience will vary and be lower than your connection speed after accounting for
factors such as the length and condition of your telephone line; the condition of wiring inside your
location; computer configuration; network or Internet congestion; and the server and router speeds of
Websites you access, among other factors. Verizon Online cannot guarantee that the service will be
uninterrupted or error -free, or the speed of the service. DSL is not available on all telephone lines.
Home I Products & Services I Sign Up Now! I My Account I Check My Email I Online Help
System Status I Dial Access Numbers I Site Map I Contact Us
Verizon Online Privacy Statement
Copyright ® 1996-2001 Verizon Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved
Ver1ZW Use of Verizon Online's internet access services and web sites are subject to user compliance with our
Policies and Terms of Service.
littp://dsi.verizon.net/pands/residential/dsipricing2.asp
Page 2 of 2
9/18/01
f
L�.
a
q, w
v
i
OMEST TERRITORY
h
t
VERIZON T>RITORY,
`
r
4P'
w�
y
11Lr011 Ct
ZQO �
)J
MMWII
_C'W' yr
�!
�Sv
TWLATA LNINDIAN
CREEK DRIVE
IDE CIR
5T'r�_
PIONEER CT
[■tl■� cruor tN
w 1101" CT w /tomol 1 CN j ..........
SW TLIALATA CT —
o
d! w .1w.Kus w rlrotrruAoTt sr c R0
SW SILEYZ CT r..rro
J
j SVC -T
'......... ..r.rt,- f
S
�
SW T
r
lOOIrOOD MELISSA OR
SW CENTERWOOO ST ^ y�
SW MCEYAN R[1 w CAP
s a 1 C ��----- Sv RED LEAF ST w Ato rro r. BRIAN CT
S. %rTMu Cr t3 —'_ _. j -�— A
7 1 f� j I� y
Sy 1 Asw FOrr cogto cr y
rA4AIr
Clop i t PILKIWTON ESA
_ .........r., R�w d
Sy Sv SENTI T 1•C 4/Kt 'C;W _ a F SY ()L0 CATE_ AD __—
L
SW COLBV Cr
N ai SW CHILES RDSW CRILOS R0
v BASS L
SIV
= 1
W, "M7 r
Wft
a,
DSL TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE RIVERGROVE ESA Sv .E S, RR I
-
LATER THIS YEAR. AVAILABLE SERVICES SUBJECT w uo*A= au
TO LOOP LENGTH. 8L
A OSL SERVICES AVAILABLE SUBJECT TO LOOP LENGTH
ortsi 190"Woov
3 cri �p10M ip O1M
F p OVERLOOK OR
rs a
C$ a amw cr 6
- D..r OP cl
3
nolKc. c
rrtrllWpE w r cr P1�
jwc ro , I trwEcrd
9 4
r
PcussA on
W WOOD
Ci, MlllWlK an
W
� wlMl cr
N
SW CIL IM (r
w aD GAIE ro
rQcIEM LM
6 MRM Rll ro
a
d R d t`'b►
w Alla ro lb
L a cko
Kss LM
�� u �4'b
>S "m"
7 A p ro t�
s s: •
w ■I.EM{ tam OI
r.411111.arr
Sep 18 2001 10:34:34
�va
A
�IN
Sy
l go
SW LOW IMM ro
a
It
w EIKQIIr w
w
WART [1r
Ip ro
�IN
Sy
l go
SW LOW IMM ro
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 4. 1, 1
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Request to create an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force. The Task Force will
be charged with evaluating the Lake Oswego Tree Code (LOC 55) and providing
recommendations for potential amendments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve the formation of an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force and related Charge
Statement.
EST. FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF COST:
One staff member for meetings;
transcription of meetings.
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
EPT. DIRECTOR
----�-- -- (" /
signoff/date
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Report
• Charge Statement
ASST. CITY MANAGER
signoff/date
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance nos.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council consideration:
Council approved the last Tree
Code Revisions in October 2000.
Council discussed the Charge
Statement and recommended
changes in the Agenda Review
Session on September 4, 2001.
_il�
CIT ANAGER
/ x , <, Ku f d
-,/
signoff/dat
G�
01 4AKL OS,.._
ORFGO"
COUNCIL
REPORT'
To: Doug Schmitz, City Manager
CC: Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager
From: Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resource Coordinator
Subject: Request to Create an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force
Date: September 12, 2001
The City Council met with the Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB) on July
17, 2001, to discuss issues of concern, including update of LOC Chapter 55, the
Tree Code. At this meeting, members of the City Council expressed several
concerns with the current Tree Code regulations. Several of the current NRAB
members had been involved in the most recent review of the Tree Code and were
able to respond to some of the concerns with historical background. Jonathan Snell,
Chair of the NRAB, offered that the NRAB had discussed the possibility of
proposing an ad-hoc committee to address Tree Code issues that have been raised
since the last Tree Code update in October 2000.
Mayor Hammerstad and several members of the Council expressed interest in the
idea of an ad-hoc committee. Based on this suggestion, staff has put together a
charge statement and a list of suggested membership for Council's review.
During a morning Council Agenda Review meeting on September 4, 2001, Council
reviewed the charge statement and offered changes. Staff revised the charge
statement by editing language to encourage a diverse cross section of members,
development of a public outreach plan, and to increase the number of members. The
term of the Task Force will be six months. The revised charge statement follows.
Ad-hoc Tree Code Ad-HocReview Task Force 2001
0J
DE LAKE 01w�
i
BACKGROUND
Lake Oswego
Ad -Hoe Tree Code Review 'Task Force
Charge Statement
The City of Lake Oswego citizens have identified the trees of the City as one of the factors that
impacts their quality of life. In order to preserve the wooded character of the city and to protect
trees as a natural resource, the City has enacted a Tree Code (55.02.010), which regulates the
removal of trees and prescribes preventative protection measures to avoid damage to trees during
site development.
The last revision of the Tree Code occurred in October 2000. Based on public comment, the City
Council has requested that the Code be reviewed to determine how well it is achieving the desired
results. It was the recommendation of Council and the Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB)
that an Ad Hoc Task Force be formed from a diverse cross section of the community to review the
current Code.
CHARGE
The Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force is charged with evaluating the Lake Oswego Tree
Code (LOC Chapter 55) and providing recommendations for potential amendments. It is the
intent of this effort to assess how the current Code is being interpreted, how the public perceives
the Code, and what measures can be taken to improve the Code. The Task Force shall reach a
general consensus on findings and recommendations.
Findings and recommendations will be presented to the Natural Resource Advisory Board
(NRAB) for comments. All comments will be presented to Council for consideration and
direction. Any Code amendments proposed as a result of these findings and recommendations
will follow normal public process.
The Task Force will develop a recommendation for a public outreach plan that may include a
survey of permit applicants, public forum and/or an educational component.
SCOPE
• Review written public feedback to Code.
• Review issues of concern expressed by the City Council and Mayor.
• Review staffcomments compiled by Sandy Ingalls (City Code Enforcement).
Ad-hoc Tree Code Ad-HocReview Task Force 2001
05
• Review several "case studies" for Tree Code issues since the last Code update.
• Review statistics regarding permits, including: number of permits applied for, issued,
and the number of trees replanted.
• Prepare a findings document.
• Prepare a public outreach program.
• Suggest Code changes to address the findings.
TASK FORCE COMPOSITION
The Task Force shall be composed of representatives from the following segments of our
community. The Task Force membership and the chair shall be appointed by the City Council.
The City Code Enforcement Officer will staff the Task Force.
Number of
SEGMENT Representatives
• Arborist representative from the I
Forestry Commission
• Arborist at -large I
• NRAB Representative I
• Citizens at -targe 4-6
TOTAL
TERM OF THE TASK FORCE
The Task Force will complete its' charge within six -months.
L :VruM'Irea• r'nde'h're• r•udr ur/-hnr
Ad-hoc Tree Code Ad-HocReview Task Force 2001
7-9
VU
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4'2' 1
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 09/18/01
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: River Run Park Enhancement Project
Resolution R-01-57, authorizing a temporary easement on River Run
Park for the purpose for a wetland enhancement project.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve Resolution R-01-57 allowing a temporary easement for the use of
River Run Park for the purpose of a wetland enhancement project.
ESTIMATED
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff time
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING
SOURCE:
Not applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Council Report 9/11/01
2.
Council Report 9/7/01
3.
Resolution R-01-57
4.
Temporary Easement
for Wetland Mitigation
5.
Aerial Photo of River
Run Park
6.
Project design
L
signoff/date
I_: \NRA13\River Run Park - Daylightinu\Re{wrt Cover 200Ldoc
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: R-01-57
Previous Council
consideration:
Council discussed Resolution R-
01-57 at an informational session
on September 10, 2001.
CITY WNAGER '
__ / ' d
signoff/date
COUNCIL
REPORT
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
CC: David D. Powell, City Attorney
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
From: Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resource Coordinator
Subject: Resolution R-01-0057/ LU -01-0041
Agreement authorizing Steve Berrey to use
River Run Park for the purpose of a Wetland Enhancement Project
Date: September It, 2001
On September 10, 2001, the City of Lake Oswego City Council held an informational
session to consider Resolution R-01-57/ LU -01-0041 which would allow Steve Berrey to
use River Run Park for the purpose of a Wetland Enhancement Project.
Council expressed support ot'placing the resolution on the September 18, 2001 Regular
Session agenda.
L \NRAWRiver Run Park - DayligluingTOUNCII. ReportAm
ATTACHMENT 1
0:i
{ o, LAKE O,
COUNCIL
REPORT
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
CC: David D. Powell, City Attorney
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
From: Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resource Coordinator
Subject: Resolution R-01-0057/ LU -01-0041
Agreement authorizing Steve Berrey to use
River Run Park for the purpose of a Wetland Enhancement Project
Date: September 7, 2001
BACKGROUND
In 1999, Pacific Habitat Services (PHS), a Consultant acting for developer Steve Berrey,
approached the City of Lake Oswego's Natural Resource Coordinator for the purpose of creating
a wetland mitigation project on City property. Mr. Berry was required by state and federal law
to do compensatory mitigation for the fill of .25 acres of wetland in the City of Tualatin in 1999.
The City Natural Resource Coordinator recommended that PHS implement a portion of the
Canal Area Master plan by "daylighting" a stormdrain, creating a wetland, and developing a trail
in River Run Park.
PHS held a community meeting with the River Run neighborhood and sent out flyers and
questionnaires. The plans were modified per recommendations of neighbors.
PHS submitted a Resource Enhancement Permit Application on 7/16/01 for Administrative
Review (LU -01-0041). In order for the application to be approved, the Council would need to
authorize the use of the River Run Parcel, a City owned property, for the above state purposes.
Adoption of attached Resolution R-01-0057 authorizes the Ulty Managrr to sign such an
agreement.
ATTACHMENT 2
11
DISCUSSION
This agreement grants Steve Berrey authorization to use River Run Park for a natural resource
mitigation project.
The applicant is proposing to daylight the stormdrain to provide hydrology for the wetland area,
excavate a seasonal wetland, remove invasive species and vegetate the area with native plant
species, construct a neighborhood loop trail along the Tualatin River in River Run Park, and will
abide by all State, Federal and City regulations for the construction and maintenance of the
project. In addition, the applicant will be required to maintain and monitor the wetland for five
years following construction.
The cost/benefit analysis included in Attachment 3 illustrates the total cost of these activities at
over $53,000. The grantee will assume these costs and the City will realize partial
implementation of the Bryant Woods/Canal Area Master Plan as identified in Attachment 4.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution R-01-0057 granting temporary
easement and use of River Run Park for the purpose of a wetland enhancement project and direct
staff to execute the attached easement.
A'1" FACHMENTS
1. Resolution R-01-0057
2. Temporary Easement o tlavwitigation
3. River Run wetl d eQele nt cost/benefit analysis
4. Bryant analiNrea Master Plan
5. Aerial P iver Run Park
6. Photo d ntation
7. Project design
p:/NRAB/river run duylighting/river run memo 2001
RESOLUTION 01-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO GRANT AN EASEMENT TO STEVE BERREY
FOR USE OF A PORTION OF RIVER RUN PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF TERMINATING
STORMWATER DRAINAGE FROM A SUBSURFACE STORMWATER PIPE AND
PROVIDING FOR SURFACE STORMWATER DRAINAGE INTO A CREATED WETLAND
(LU -01-0041).
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Canal Area Master Plan at its March 6, 2001 meeting;
and,
WHEREAS, the Canal Area Master Plan establishes a vision for the enhancement and
connectivity of 61 acres of natural open space for wildlife habitat, passive recreation and natural
resource protection and identifies goals and projects for implementation and gives direction for
concentrating enhancement and restoration efforts in an area that includes River Run Park; and
WHEREAS, Steve Berrey ("Owner") has proposed wetland mitigation at the site for a
development project in the City of Tualatin, for which the City of Tualatin and the Division of
State Lands requires mitigation of wetland functions and values, and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested the use of a portion of River Run Park for purposes of
executing a wetland mitigation plan, including but not limited to the construction of a
neighborhood trail along the Tualatin River;
WHEREAS, this provides an opportunity for fulfilling a portion of the adopted Canal Area
Master Plan efficiently and cost-effectively, and
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted plans and specifications for the mitigation work at the city
site, and the City Engineer and Planning Department finds that the plans and specifications meet
city requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter requires the City Manager to receive authorization from the City
Council for conducting real property transactions;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to grant an easement, in accordance with the form
attached, to Steve Berrey, his successors and assigns, for the temporary use of the tbllowing
described parcel of property far the purposes of terminating stormwater drainage from a
subsurface stormwater pipe and providing for surface stormwater drainage into a wetland to be
created in River Run Park, subject to the obligation to carry out the wetland mitigation plan
approved by City Engineer and the Planning Department:
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 1 - RESOLUTION 01-57
�J
"LOT 45, PLAT OF RIVER RUN (PLAT 2454), PLAT RECORDS OF CLACKAMAS
COUNTY, OREGON."
Considered and enacted at the regular Council meeting of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on 18 day of September, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad
Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
1. NRAB\Ricer Run Park - Daylighting\RFSO I -U r 1N dtw
Page 2 - RESOLUTION 0 1 -57 - 14
Name of Document For Recording: Easement (I -or County Recording Use Only)
Grantor: City of Lake Oswego
Grantee: Steve Berrey
Consideration: $0.00, together with other good and
valuable consideration.
Tax Statement to be mailed to: No change.
Statutory Recordation Authority: ORS 93.710(1).
After Recording, Return To: City of Lake Oswego,
380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034
Send copy to: Steve Berrey, 18879 SW Martinazzi,
Tualatin, OR 97062
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
FOR WETLAND MITIGATION
Grantor: City of Lake Oswego, a Municipal Corporation
380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Grantee:
Steve Berrey
18879 SW Martinazzi
Tualatin, OR 97062
Grant of Easement. The City of Lake Oswego, "Grantor," grants and conveys a temporary easement to Steve
Berrey, his successors and assigns, on, over and across the real property described on the attached Exhibit A and
illustrated on the attached Exhibit B for the purposes described herein.
2. Purpose and Use of Easement.
A. Grantee may enter upon, over and across Grantor's real property over existing roadways only for the
following purpose(s):
(1) For construction, reconstruction, repair and replacement in accordance with that certain
Wetland Mitigation Plan received July 13, 2001. on file and approved by the Grantor.
(2) For access and installation, construction, reconstruction, repair, and replacement of a
stormwater pipe, in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. Any work done by the
Grantee pursuant hereto shall be so done as to leave the premises in a condition reasonably similar to the
previous state of the premises when any work is finished thereon.
(3) Modify, contour, landscape and otherwise make modification to the Mitigation Area, as
depicted in the Grantor -approved Mitigation Plan.
B. Grantee shall not interfere with Grantor's (or the public's use, as may be permitted by Grantor) access,
use, construction, reconstruction, repair and replacement of the following:
Page 1 - Easement
(1). Buffer adjacent to private property, as depicted in the Mitigation Plan.
(2) All property outside of the wetland mitigation area, as defined in the mitigation plan, for
City purposes.
(3) Relocation of a storm drain pipe, as depicted in the Mitigation Plan and on the Grantee's
application to Grantor.
(4) Neighborhood trail along the Tualatin River, as depicted in the Mitigation Plan.
ATTACHMENT 4
1;)
i
(S) Any emergency repair of City stormdrain system due to flood, heavy rain, or other acts
of God.
Covenants and Representations of Grantee,, Restrictions Relating to Use of Easement
A. Special Restrictions: none.
B. Grantee will observe and abide by all the laws, rules and regulations imposed by any lawful
governmental authority and relating in any way to any activity conducted on the premises, and shall
require all of Grantee's agents, employees and agents upon the premises to do likewise. Grantee shall
obtain all necessary state, federal and local permits as may be necessary for Grantee's use of the real
property as set forth above.
C. Grantee will not permit any damage, waste or strip of all property outside of the Mitigation Area by
action of the Grantee, its agents or employees. No shrubs, trees or other vegetation may be pruned,
moved or other wise disturbed as a result of this Easement, except as necessary for the authorized work,
as described in the Purposes of the Easement above. Grantee shall repair, replace or restore the non -
Mitigation Area so that it is free from evidence of Grantee's use
D. All risk of loss of Grantee's property shall be that of Grantee.
E. Grantee certifies, acknowledges and agrees that this Easement is accepted and executed on the basis of
Grantee's own examination and personal knowledge of the premises and personal property and Grantee's
own opinion thereof, all prior negotiations, representations of fact or opinion or agreements relating to
said property made by the Grantor or any agent thereof upon which Grantee may have relied have been
reduced to writing and are included in this agreement, and if not so reduced to writing, are expressly
waived, which waiver is a material part of the consideration of the execution of this contract by the
Grantor.
F. Grantor makes no warranties as to the condition of the premises or personal property other than as set out
herein. Grantee takes the property herewith and use of the premises, AS IS, in the condition existing at
the time of use of the Easement.
G. This Easement represents the full, entire and complete agreement of the parties, except as may otherwise
be in writing provided.
H. The Grantee shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Grantor, its officers, agents and employees, harmless
against all liability, loss, or expenses, including attorney's fees, and against all claims, actions or
judgments based upon or arising out of damage or injury (including death) to persons or property caused
by any act or omission of an act sustained in any way in connection with the use of this Easement or by
conditions created thereby, or based upon violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation. This
contractual indemnity provision does not abrogate common law or statutory liability and indemnification
to the Grantor, but is in addition to such common law or statutory provisions.
The Grantee shall obtain prior to the use of the Easement, and shall maintain in full force and effect for
the term of this Easement, at the Grantee's expense, a comprehensive general or commercial general
liability policy for the protection of the Grantee and the Grantor, its officers, agents, and employees. If
the insurance policy is issued on a "claims made" basis, then the Grantee shall continue to obtain and
maintain coverage for not less than three years following the completion of the contract. The policy shall
be issued by a company authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, protecting the Grantee or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them against liability for the loss or damage of
personal and bodily injury, contractual liability, death and property damage, and any other losses or
damages above mentioned with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the
Page 2 - Easement
16
aggregate, or the limit of public liability contained in ORS 30.260 to 30.300, whichever is greater. The
insurance company shall provide the Grantor with a certificate of insurance and an endorsement thereto
naming the Grantor as an additional insured, providing that no acts on the pout of the insured shall affect
the coverage afforded to the above policy, and providing the Grantor will receive 30 days written notice
of cancellation or material modification of the insurance contract. The obligation to provide notice to the
City shall be in substantially the following language: "Should any of the above described policies be
cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 30 days written notice to the
certificate holder named"; it is not sufficient for the insurance carrier to merely "endeavor" to give notice
or for the certificate to absolve the insurance carrier from obligation or liability in the event of the
insurance carrier's failure to mail such notice.
The Grantee will not enter the real property and utilize the Easement until the Grantor has received
copies of applicable insurance policies or acceptable evidence that appropriate insurance heretofore
mentioned is in force.
4. Consideration for Easement. The consideration for this Easement is: 0.00; it is for the mutual benefit of the
parties.
5. Term of Easement. This Easement shall commence upon execution and remain in effect for 5 years, or such
additional time as may be necessary for Grantee be in compliance with the Division of State Lands mitigation
requirements, whichever is later.
6. Construction. In construing this Easement, the singular may include the plural, and vice versa, the masculine
may include the feminine and neuter, and vice versa, if the context so requires, and generally all grammatical
changes shall be made, assumed or implied to make the provisions hereof applicable to corporations as to
individuals and as necessary to carry out the intent of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor have hereunto executed this Easement on the (late stated below and
the terms and provisions of the Easement are accepted by the Grantee.
Grantor: City of Lake Oswego
By:
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
Date Signed:
t. NRAMRiver Run Park - Uaylighlinglrmcr run daylighting.cawnicru .doc
Page 3 - Easement
Grantee: Steve
Name: Steve Berrey
Date Signed:
PLAWW= r0R as N" IRM o Wn— ..I " N.A
eu.bliiiaoel- N.rn. _
Sb�
O�.wrn Ilv..� 1 b� rml _
G.eV.rb
O.� eb.gM1 � rJp. �
IIM � Slv.b
OMdsM /dMe I..o.�1. t1y
eCD
O 11.. nd.
nd M.Y tW'
IW
♦
UM W - APPLY 90TH nQ AM !tela DOW"
f/�J�s MMIW
p�pi 3"'
Im
u..6wly r els w. w I+r— -W
A
e
--
TWAL PLAfff m
.O6
dlall�.. IIMIKtlI. i��n
G.eV.rb
O.� eb.gM1 � rJp. �
e00
OMdsM /dMe I..o.�1. t1y
eCD
>dN IIlb.vp. —w a.a t*.M Ph"
400
1001L RMaetae
1660
UM W - APPLY 90TH nQ AM !tela DOW"
s.e.+er w.r ow.I.. a.I. F— "I"
Kr
u..6wly r els w. w I+r— -W
te•.Ie su..1. w..sr/. .. a
e
r..ew n6. ..6.. Id Ise ...r
10
ILU11e.n 6n.I0a/on •net.e tr.Ry ...t
t
�..
!Wee .ab.► /sr-N.W k%W. w
Ie
•.:�+. Rww =. Yr I..�6 I.�.IY. rwb.rr
;..
uels W.rPIAn
rns 0 w"M
exau IN Firr
Proposed planting plan, pathway location and bat houses at the River Run Natural Resource Enhancement site. ATTACHMENT
.IS
Pacific IlabilaI Services, Inc.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4.2 • 2i
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 09/18/01
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Resolution 01-71, authorizing the Mayor to sign an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement continuing the Local Youth Diversion Program in
order to increase funding for the program.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Adopt Rcsolution 01-71
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
None
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Yes No_X
FUNDING SOURCE:
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Grant
Funds
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Report dated
August 29, 2001
• Resolution No. 01-71
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: 01-71
Previous Council consideration
May 15, 2001
DEPT. DI CT ASST. CITY MANAGER CITY M AGER
Da e
Date
6 /
Date
Police Services
Council Report
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Les G. Youngbar, Director of Public Safety
PREPARED BY: Jan Neihart, Senior Secretary
SUBJECT: Resolution 01-71, Authorizing the Mayor to sign an Amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County to continue the local
Youth Diversion Program
DATE': August 29, 2001
Action:
Council is requested to adopt Resolution 01-71 authorizing the Mayor to sign an amendment to
the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County,
Oregon to continue the local Youth Diversion Program.
Discussion:
The City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement on May 15, 2001, between the City
of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County, Oregon to continue the local youth diversion program
funded by State Juvenile Crime Prevention pass-through dollars.
Parrott Creek Child & Family Services has requested additional funding for the staff support
they are providing to the City of Lake Oswego Diversion Panel. Clackamas County has initiated
an amendment that increases the funds from the current $20,000 to the amended amount of
$24,500. The contract completion date remains the same at June 30, 2002.
Alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 01-71
2. Do not adopt Resolution 01-71
3. Remove from the consent agenda and discuss
Conclusion:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 01.-71 authorizing the mayor to sign an
Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County.
PW
RESOLUTION 01-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTINUING THE LOCAL YOUTH
DIVERSION PROGRAM IN ORDER TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement on May 15, 2001,
between the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County, Oregon to continue the local youth
diversion program funded by State Juvenile Crime Prevention pass-through dollars; and
WHEREAS, Parrott Creek Child & Family Services has requested additional funding for the
staff support they are providing to the City of Lake Oswego for the youth diversion program; and
WHEREAS, Clackamas County has agreed to pay the City of Lake Oswego the additional funds
requested,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1: The Mayor is hereby authorized on behalf of the City of Lake Oswego to sign an
amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County, Oregon continuing the
Local Youth Diversion Program, which amendment increases funding for the program by $4500.
Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on the day 18`x' day September 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Agreement available in the City
Pagel -RESOLUTION 01-71 Recorder's Office for review.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
PaLuftkulvo
Dave Powell, City Attorney
Page 2 - RESOLUTION 01-71
98 N
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4.2.3
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 09/18/01
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Resolution 01-72, Authorizing the Mayor to Sign an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Washington County for the Installation and Operation of a
Stream Gauging Station on Springbrook Creek.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution 01-72, authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Washington County for the installation and operation of a stream gauging station on Springbrook Creek.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
d
$7,752.00
STAFF COST:
None
BUDGETED:
i Y X N
FUNDING SOURCE:
Surface Water
Management Fund
ATTACHMENTS:
• Schoening Council Report
dated September 7, 2001
• Resolution O l -72
CITY .N(;INEER —
Date
- 61 /�Z_
CITY WANAGER
Date
N:\ANDY_N\Springbruuk Gauge\R-01•72_Sununary_SB Gauge.doc
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: 01-72
Previous Council Consideration:
None
N ..
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Mark Schoening, City Engineer
PREPARED BY: Andrew Harris, Surface Water Management Specialist
S1Jl3JFCT: Resolution 01-72, Authorizing the Mayor to Sign an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Washington County for the Installation and Operation of a
Stream Gauging Station on Springbrook Creek,
DATF: September 7, 2001
Action
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution 01-72, authorizing the Mayor to sign an
Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for the installation and operation of a
stream gauging station on Springbrook Creek.
Introduction
"The Tualatin Basin Watermaster will install, operate, and maintain a stream gauging station on
Springbrook Creek between Iron Mountain Boulevard and the Willamette & Pacific railroad
crossing. The City of Lake Oswego will provide and own the gauging station and equipment.
This is the only stream gauging station in Lake Oswego.
Discussion
The stream gauging station will collect continuous stage, flow, and water temperature data from
Springbrook Creek. The 'Tualatin Basin Watermaster will provide quarterly operations reports
on this data to the City's Engineering Division. The stream gauging station will also contain a
stormwater sampler that will take "time weighted" composite samples of' pre -selected storm
runoff events from Springbrook Creek. The City Engineering Division will prepare water quality
reports on each sampled stormwater event.
31
Council Report
Resolution 01-72
Page 2
This data is vital to understand the flow and water quality characteristics of Springbrook Creek
and for predicting these characteristics in other Oswego Lake tributaries. It will provide
information needed to understand water quality conditions in Springbrook Creek and to assess
the effectiveness of existing and new Best Management Practices (BMP) implemented by the
City.
AlternatiN es
Che alternatives are:
Adopt Resolution 01-72. authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement
with Washington County for the installation and operation of a stream gauging station on
Springbrook Creek.
Do not adopt Resolution 01-72, authorizing the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Washington County for the installation and operation of a stream gauging
station on Springbrook Creek.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 01-72, authorizing the Mayor to sign an
Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for the installation and operation ol'a
stream gauging station on Springbrook Creek.
I I :\till)- I I'S I KI AMS'SII Swd, It, \ Ktr.n G-g,ng Mau— J,h
RESOLUTION 01-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION OF A STREAM GAUGING STATION ON SPRINGBROOK CREEK.
WHEREAS, there is a need to collect continuous stage, flow, and temperature data on
Springbrook Creek; and
WHEREAS, this stage, flow, and temperature data is vital to understand the flow and
water quality characteristics of Springbrook Creek and for predicting these characteristics
in the other Oswego lake tributaries; and
WHEREAS, the Tualatin Basin Watermaster will install, operate, and maintain a stream
gauging station on Springbrook Creek and provide all other services as more specifically
described in the Intergovernmental Agreement, attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego now authorizes the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Washington County to provide funding for the installation and operation of a stream
gauging station on Springbrook Creek for an monetary amount not to exceed $7,752.00.
(EXHIBIT "A")
Considered and enacted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 18`h day of September, 2001
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
2� ,
David Powell
City Attorney
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Agreement available in the City
Recorder's Office for review.
33
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4.2.4
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 09/ 18/01
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Resolution 01-73, Authorizing the City Manager to Acquire an Easement for
Stream Restoration and Construction Access on Springbrook Creek from Janet
Sue LaFontaine.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution 01-73, authorizing the City Manager to acquire an easement for stream restoration
and construction access on Springbrook Creek from Janet Sue LaFontaine.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
$3,000.00
STAFF COST:
None
BUDGETED:
Y X N
FUNDING SOURCE:
Surface Water
Management Fund
ATTACHMENTS:
• Schoening Council Report
dated September 7, 2001
• Resolution O 1-73
CI Y f: GINF.ER CITY ANAGFR
Date
Date
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: 01-73
Previous Council Consideration:
None
35
H:\ANDY_11\CIP\W0\11,12\Etisements\R-01.73_Summary_l a Fontaine F:asement.doe
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Mark Schoening, City Engineer
PREPARED BY: Andrew Harris, Surface Water Management Specialist
SUILIECT: Resolution 01-73, Authorizing the City Manager to Acquire an Easement
for Stream Restoration and Construction Access on Springbrook Creek
from Janet Sue LaFontaine.
DATE: September 7, 2001
Action
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution 0l -73 authorizing the City Manager to acquire
an easement for stream restoration and construction access on Springbrook Creek from Janet Sue
LaFontaine.
Introduction
There is a need to prevent stream channel erosion, prevent water quality pollution, and protect
fish and wildlife species in Springbrook Creek. The City of Lake Oswego will install and
maintain stream restoration measures on Springbrook Creek that will restore natural stream
channel stability, create flood plains, improve -water quality, and improve habitat for fish and
wildlife.
Discussion
This easement for stream restoration and construction access is needed to allow the City of lake
Oswego to install stream restoration measures on Springbrook Creek.
37
Council Report
Resolution 01-73
Page 2
Alternatives
The alternatives are:
1. Adopt Resolution 01-73, authorizing the City Manager to acquire an easement for stream
restoration and construction access on Springbrook Creek from Janet Sue LaFontaine.
2. Do not adopt Resolution 01-73, authorizing the City Manager to acquire an easement for
stream restoration and construction access on Springbrook Creek from Janet Sue
LaFontaine.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 01-73, authorizing the City Manager to acquire
an easement for stream restoration and construction access on Springbrook Creek from Janet Sue
LaFontaine.
I I V -M I l i IP V— I I I.' I a,ements\k-01 Report La Fontaine Casement doc � 38
RESOLUTION 01-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OS WEGO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT FOR
SRTREAM RESTORATION AND CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ON SPRINGBROOK
CREEK.
WHEREAS, there is a need to prevent stream channel erosion, prevent water quality
pollution, and protect fish and wildlife species in Springbrook Creek; and
WHEREAS, this easement is needed to allow the City of Lake Oswego to install stream
restoration measures on Springbrook Creek; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego will install and maintain stream restoration
measures on Springbrook Creek that will restore natural stream channel stability, create
flood plains, improve water quality, and improve habitat for fish and wildlife.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego now authorizes the City Manager to acquire an easement for stream restoration and
construction access on Springbrook Creek from Janet Sue LaFontaine for the monetary
amount not to exceed $3,000.00. (EXHIBIT "A")
Considered and enacted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 18`h day of September, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell
City Attorney
.Judie I-lammerstad, Mayor
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Agreement available in the City
Recorder's Office for review.
3 �i
EXHIBIT C
TWIN FIR RD.
�LOT 257 LOT 258
� 2 I OBAB TL 1500
14800 TWIN FIR ROAD
I
/ I I
I
i
I
I I
HOUSE
� I
i
CONCRETE
I
I t
I
NEW CREEK ALIGNMENT
165.00'
EXISTING CREEK ALIGNMENT
o �
LOT 256
I i �
I �
STREAM RESTORATION /
l EASEMENT
it
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGoSPRINGBROOK CREEK
ENGINEERING STREAM RESTORATION
DEPARTMENT EASEMENT
DESIGN:
DRAWN:
CHECK:
AH I
G8K
I AH
SCALE:
DATE:
1" = 50'
JULY 10, 2001
SHEET
DRAWING N0.
1 OF 2
8A8 TL1500
EXHIBIT D
Pp
�O
TWIN FIR RD.
ILOT 256 _
i NEW CREEK ALIGNMENT
I I
I
I I
OT 258
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
EASEMENT
EXISTING CREEK ALIGNMENT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGo SPRINGBROOK CREEK
ENGINEERING STREAM RESTORATION
DEPARTMENT ACCESS EASEMENT
DESIGN;
DRAWN:
CHECK.
AH
GBK
AH
SCALE:
DATE:
1�� = 50.
JULY 10, 2001
SHEET
DRAWING N0.
of 2
BAB TLI500
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4.3���, , ����
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes from:
1. July 16, 2001, Council Retreat
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council adds corrections to the motion)
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes from:
• July 16, 2001, Council Retreat
N:\Robyn\retort, minutes.doc
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY M AGER
si noff/dat
9
4.3.1
09/18/01
MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2001
MID -YEAR REVIEW
Pr, Nic A f f air. Department
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Correction to Minutes
DATE: September 18, 2001
C: Douglas J. Schmitz, David Powell
Minutes
The following corrections have been made to the minutes on the consent agenda for the
September 18, 2001 Council meeting. Please make the motion to approve minutes as corrected.
Date of Minutes
Page
Correction
July 16, 2001 Mid -Year Review
13 of 28
The word `as' was inserted in the fourth
(61)
paragraph under E -Government
July 16, 2001 Mid -Year Review
18 of 28
The word `process' replaced the word
(66)
`appearance'
\\FINANCE\DATA\INFOSVC\Robyn\min mcnm.doc
D. Attempt to reach agreement on street Improvements on the west side cif First Avenue
between Millennium Plaza Park and A Avenue
Mr. Schmitz indicated that this goal might not be attainable this year; the Mai or would continue
her conversations with Mr. Wizer.
V. E -Government
Mr. Schmitz noted that the budget was approved for some of the equipment. Jane McGarvin,
Deputy City Recorder, indicated that they have purchased the scanner but it was not hooked up
yet.
Mr. Jordan reported that the budget summaries of all the funds were on line. lie mentioned that
the lien searches, which used to be done by paper, were now done on the Internet, which meant a
reduction in manpower.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City website had a link to neighborhood
pages, which was available to neighborhood associations. She clarified that the City was doing
the five or six neighborhood pages currently available. She said that the Historic Review
Advisory Board page was online and staff was working on pages for the Natural Resources
Advisory Board and the Planning Commission.
Councilor McPeak mentioned a request from a citizen that the City make neighborhood news,
such as a new signal light, easy to find on its website. She suggested including a link to ongoing
construction projects also.
Mr. Jordan commented that there was an art to creating homepages with appropriate links but
not so cluttered that it was confusing and people stopped using it.
VI. Neighborhood Livability and Community Context
A. Adopt density guidelines
Ms. Heisler indicated that the Planning Commission would look at this issue again soon.
B. Adopt neighborhood plans
Mayor Hammerstad commented that after the meeting with the County Commission, she
thought that there were things that they could do in the adoption of the Lake Forest plan. She
suggested that they look at responsibilities when they gave the plan to the County.
Councilor Rohde asked for discussion of adopting the regulatory language necessary for the
implementation of the neighborhood plans. He recalled that this was a concern of all the prior
plans passed: the regulatory language was in the plans but not codified. He clarified to
Councilor Schoen that lie was talking about a different issue than the Lake Forest issues on
unincorporated County land that the Council needed to review with the County.
Ms. Heisler recalled that the Planning Commission held a work session on neighborhood
notification, one of the primary concerns of the Lake Grove neighborhood. She said that the
Commission would have another work session to look at what regulatory pieces have been
suggested in all the plans and to see which different processes would be feasible for the whole
community.
Ms. Heisler mentioned that Lake Grove's request for building orientation guidelines related
directly to the Infill Task Force, which was looking at that issue. She indicated that the other
major concern of Lake Grove was design guidelines specifically for the West End Commercial
District. She said that staff has applied for a TGM grant to work on that.
Ms. Heisler observed that, given the Council discussions on Lake Forest and its discussion with
the County, staff needed to work with the County staff to craft language that was more in line
with what the County could do, and to include an annexation piece with a timeline. Councilor
City Council Mid -Fear Review Minutes Page 13 of 28
July 16, 2001
by using a paper screening process. She spoke in support of a number that could be handled by a
small group of Councilors in one interview session as opposed to multiple sessions. She
contended that one session presented a fairer process than multiple sessions.
Councilor Turehi concurred with Councilor Rohde's point that the applicants believed that they
were doing the City a favor, and not vice versa. He pointed out that telling someone who came
in to do the Council a favor that the Council did not want to talk to him/her did not present a
good appearance.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested a process whereby the interview committee for a board met to
do some pre-screening based on the applications and at the same time developed questions and
decided what it was looking for. She held that this would be a more efficient way to interview
for an advisory committee. She mentioned that, even if they did not exceed a reasonable number
of applications, the committee could meet prior to the interviews to develop the questions.
Mayor Hammerstad explained that she was looking to make this process as efficient as possible
while obtaining the best people they could. She commented that they did not want to tell
someone that the City would keep his/her resume on file if the Council were never going to
consider them. She characterized the current process as time consuming and tedious. She
indicated that she supported Councilor McPeak's suggested alternative but included more in the
pre-screening process.
Councilor McPeak moved to limit the number of candidates who would have actual
interviews for Board and Commission vacancies to eight by means of a review of clic
applications by all Council members. 'There was no second.
Councilor McPeak clarified to Councilor Rohde that the process she had in mind was to create
a matrix and to interview those who got the top eight votes. She held that they did not need to
discuss the paperwork, as they could all make up their own minds.
Councilor Schoen indicated that he did not want to limit the number of applicants interviewed.
He concurred with Councilor Rohde that if people took the time to apply to serve on a Board or
Commission, then the Council had an obligation to listen to them, no matter how poorly
qualified they might be. He pointed out that this was a small community and word would get
around if some people were not selected to begin with.
Mr. Hertzberg noted that there appeared to be general agreement that everyone should be
interviewed. }ie directed the discussion to the pre -interview process.
Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that those who did not want to limit the interviews needed to
be willing to commit the time necessary to conduct the interviews, as presently the burden was
falling on a couple of people. Mr. Hertzberg mentioned Councilor Schoen's suggestion to hold
interviews in the morning and Councilor Turchi's statement that he had more time available now.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested that whoever was on the interview committee also commit to
taking time to decide among the committee members what they were looking for on the Board
and develop their questions.
Councilor Rohde asked if the Council as a whole should discuss what it expected on its boards
and give direction to the interview committee. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the members
not on the interview committee give input on what they would like to see when Shirley sent out
the recruitment for the interview committee.
Councilor Graham asked if there was a way to schedule the evening interviews so that they did
not conflict with the meeting nights of Boards and Commissions. She observed that sometimes
there was a conflict for a Council liaison between doing the interviews and attending their Board
or Commission meeting. Councilor McPeak remarked that that would be tough to do.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 18 of 28
July IG, 2001
L`, UL LAItt t�,»�G
° July 16, 2001
CITY COUNCIL
MID -YEAR REVIEW
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council special meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. on
July 16, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak and
Hoffman.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Jane McGarvin,
Deputy City Recorder; Joe Hertzberg, Facilitator; Chris Jordan, Assistant City
Manager; Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
Joe Hertzberg, Facilitator, asked each Councilor to review the highlights and the lowlights of
the last six months for him or herself.
The Councilors generally mentioned their ability to form consensus, to cooperate in working
towards their mutual goals, and to disagree in a respectful manner. Councilor Turchi
mentioned `the art of the possible.' Councilor Rohde held that the Council was doing an
excellent job of preparing themselves for the decisions that came before them.
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the accomplishments of the Council in the last six months:
starting the Farmer's Market, signing the Development and Disposition Agreement with Gramor
for Block 138, continuing support for the trolley transitioning into a street car, upcoming
approval of the second phase of the East End Redevelopment Plan (Foothills Road). She
mentioned the library situation as a major negative situation. She described the Council's
biggest challenge as developing credibility and trust among people who did not trust the City.
She spoke to the Council taking leadership and persuading the community to join them in
positioning the city for 2020.
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, asked how far and how fast could the Council nm (in the next
1.5 to 3.5 years remaining in its term) towards accomplishing whatever it wanted to accomplish
in building the community. He noted that the Council's cohesiveness created in the City
organization a sense that staff could do things and that they could pursue projects currently
languishing.
David Powell, City Attorney, observed that, not only has the Council gotten along, but it has
done a great deal of hard work behind the scenes, which facilitated a smooth public process. He
mentioned the staffs appreciation of the greater professionalism in the staff -Council relationship.
The Council agreed that their decision not to meet the last week of the month has worked out
well.
3. VISIONING
Mr, Hertzberg pointed out that in order to accomplish tasks, the Council had to focus on both
what was possible today and where it wanted to get to in the future. I -le led the Council in an
exercise of describing what Lake Oswego would look like in 2021.
Councilor Rohde saw the Portland Central City streetcar connection to downtown Lake Oswego
at a transit center at State and A Avenue that intersected with a commuter rail line running from
Milwaukie to McMinnville with continuing excursion cars out to the coast. I ie mentioned a
lively mixed-use residential/commercial area in the Foothills area, reconnecting the city with the
river.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page I of 28
July 16, 2001 11
Councilor Rohde saw all citizens of Lake Oswego enjoying the Lake Grove Swim Park and
possibly limited canoe access to the lake, which was clear and of high quality. He described
Boones Ferry Road as a pedestrian friendly boulevard and three-story buildings on Block 137
brought to the street. He mentioned the developed open spaces and the pathway/nature trails
network available for recreation.
Councilor Rohde saw Millennium Park completed and all areas within the urban service
boundary annexed to the city with sewer and other urban services provided by the City. He
mentioned the police still responding to'no call too small,' and no weapons fire since 2000.
Councilor Schoen saw a pedestrian square developed between A and C and 2"d and 4", a park
running along Lake Oswego's entire river front with a marina and pathways connecting to
Portland and West Linn, and a mixed use development adjacent to the park. He mentioned
extending A and C Avenues over Highway 43 with a park and ride on the other side.
Councilor Schoen saw an 18 -hole golf course at Luscher Farm (Councilor Rohde concurred)
and Stafford beginning to develop in a reasonable manner controlled by City planning and
consistent with Lake Oswego requirements. He agreed with Councilor Rohde's description of
the streetcar and transportation facilities.
Councilor Schoen spoke to solving the public facilityproblems and to generating sufficient
revenues to continue to maintain the existing quality of life while developing the city to its fullest
potential.
Councilor Turchi concurred with many of the elements already mentioned about the river,
transportation and the compact -shopping district. He spoke to fostering neighborhoods that were
family -friendly and not so expensive that their own children could not afford to live here. He
mentioned a certain degree of ethnic and religious diversity, and physical facilities, such as
recreation centers, swimming pools, tennis centers and libraries.
Councilor Turchi saw Lake Oswego expanding the Stafford area with its partners in creating a
beautiful nature area.
Councilor Graham spoke to maximizing the resources available to the City, from the open
space in Stafford to the use of public facilities (such as the schools) to the use of the parks for
community activities. She shared the dream for a transportation line connecting to the commuter
rail in Wilsonville and to the fast rail up to Vancouver, BC
Councilor Graham spoke of pursuing sustainability in looking at the long-term goal as opposed
to focusing on the immediate. She concurred with Councilor Schoen about securing stable
funding, mentioning in particular paying a good staff salaries sufficient to keep them at the City
and funding street maintenance.
Councilor Graham saw the Youth Council as a dynamic learning opportunity for the future
political leaders who were now in high school. She mentioned downtown redevelopment and
reclaiming the Willamette River waterfront, including a marina. She spoke of increased
volunteerism in light of the City's inability to pay for everything and to retaining the diversity in
the neighborhoods. She saw a unified community without the geographic divisions that existed
today.
Councilor McPeak read `headlines from the Luke Oswego Review':
Mayor Cathy Schroyer, along with many citizens from the now West side, providing
community leadership in a more unified community;
• Stafford annexed to Lake Oswego and developed in accordance with New Urbanism
principles;
• The new Lake Oswego Streetcar, in combination with regular street maintenance funding,
eases congestion on I-lighway 43;
• 30% of City employees live in Lake Oswego due to housing subsidies; and
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 2 of 28
July 16, 2001 50
• Celebrating the five year anniversary of the new library (location unknown) at the new plaza
on the Westside.
In looking forward to how far the City would go by 2020, Councilor Hoffman discussed how
far Lake Oswego has come since 1980. He noted that the neighborhoods, such as Westlake that
were built in the 1980s, would be 40 years old while the older neighborhoods today would be 70
to 80 years old in 2020. He indicated that this meant remodeling and infill pressure, which
required a fair and open process that would hopefully utilize mediation in achieving compatible
redevelopment, as opposed to the rigid land use proceedings used today.
Councilor Hoffman saw good leaders from the public and private sectors helping
neighborhoods develop the `art of being a good neighbor.' He mentioned pathways connecting
the neighborhoods as another component.of developing a sense of community. He spoke of
maximizing the open space that the City currently owned and increasing the City's holdings in
Stafford, Tryon Creek and stream corridors.
Councilor Hoffman saw the Stafford area within the urban growth boundary and undergoing
SMART development that made it more similar to Lake Oswego than to West Linn. He
mentioned seeing Luscher Farm developed, but not as an 18 -hole golf course.
Councilor Hoffman saw more corporate giving, volunteerism and partnerships with the school
district and other civic groups. He mentioned a community center, an aquatic center and a
library as well as the schools utilized for recreation. He saw Lake Oswego with the best
infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water and roads), public facilities, staff and local officials in
the region. He spoke of Lake Oswego leading the way at both Clackamas County and Metro.
Councilor Hoffman saw more ability to shop in the Lake Oswego downtown. He mentioned
connecting the plaza to the Lakewood Center with a boardwalk extending along the bay, and a
river district. He saw traffic congestion increasing as the population increased and the number of
cars per household increased, which created the challenge of creating the greatest community on
the West Coast, even with the congestion.
Councilor Hoffman mentioned a clear and clean lake with trout swimming in it and community
access.
Mayor Hammerstad read a statement describing why Lake Oswego was awarded the "Most
Livable City in the U.S." award in 2020. She mentioned the achievement of its long-term goals
and visions during the past 20 years. She described the completion of the redeveloped downtown
area with excellent pedestrian and visual amenities and private development following public
investment in the redevelopment of underutilized land. She listed the following specifics:
• A walkway at the south end of the lake from the cabanas to the Lakewood Center;
• The redevelopment of Blocks 136, 137 and 138 through public and private partnerships;
• The development of a transit mall at State and A with rail and bus connections;
• A park and ride with adequate parking'space and a park on the top floor, which connects
upper Lake Oswego to the lower area via an overpass over State Street;
• A redeveloped new area of east of Highway 43, which provides below market housing (using
state and federal funds) and a self-sufficient retail commercial area;
• Pedestrian access and traffic control measures in the Lake Grove business district, which aid
the surrounding businesses and make the area pleasantly accessible by the neighborhoods;
• The development of guidelines for keeping infill in the aging neighborhoods compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood;
• Using public/private partnerships to provide a community center with a library, swimming
pool and indoor recreation facilities;
• A full range of open space and park facilities made possible by bond measures for purchasing
open spaces, including a model pathway system along the Willamette River from North
Macadam to West Linn;
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 3 of 28
July 16, 2001
Jj
• The development of public -public partnerships with the school district and other jurisdictions
to provide the highest quality of services in a variety of areas;
• Using the best practices of SMART growth, sustainability and New Urbanism, Lake Oswego
has provided services and accessed funding for the needs of the community, such as adding a
streetcar line using the Willamette Shore railroad tracks that helped reduce congestion on
Highway 43; and
• Lake Oswego's commitment to community, as evidenced by the Council's use of advisory
committees, neighborhood organizations and ad hoc task forces to help solve problems and
suggest solutions, and its many activities that foster civic participation (Festival of the Arts,
Farmer's Market, Arts Downtown).
Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Council was in remarkable agreement on what each saw
for the future of Lake Oswego.
Mr. Powell concurred that the Council showed a commonality of ideas. He discussed
encouraging an expansion of arts programs in order to make Lake Oswego into an entertainment
and cultural center. He pointed out that doing so mixed well with redevelopment. He spoke of
using the river for transportation and a local bus system that allowed people to get around Lake
Oswego itself using mass transit.
Mr. Powell concurred that it would be nice to see Stafford develop in accordance with the
principles of New Urbanism. He spoke to expanding the downtown vision beyond the East End
and Foothills Road. He mentioned the importance of the tree code in maintaining the green
canopy over the 20 years. He discussed the City maintaining the level of citizen access and
impact on policy that it had now, even if it expanded into Stafford in 20 years.
Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager, saw the impacts of the Open Space Master Plan in
green ways, green boulevards, landscaped medians, tree preservation and pathways set back from
the roads. He mentioned neighborhoods with their own character. He spoke of open spaces in
Stafford developed for passive use, and development in keeping with the Lake Oswego character
of green spaces, trees and mixed densities.
Mr. Jordan saw civic facilities, such as an aquatics center and new library. He hoped that they
would have found ways to solve the congestion problem by 2021 beyond building more roads.
He spoke to a sense of community that moved past the geographic boundaries, as the community
demonstrated at the recent Fourth of July celebration.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, concurred with Mayor Hammerstad that the
Council described a significant number of common visions. She characterized the most frequent
element mentioned as `choice:' increasing choice in park usage, park types, transportation,
neighborhood types, etc. She spoke to retaining the government's responsiveness to its citizens,
whether the issue was infill or the tree code.
Ms. Heisler held that both the Eastside and Westside of town were unique and special. She
spoke to capitalizing on having two parts of town. She mentioned opportunities to increase
mixed use in the neighborhood commercial areas, such as at Pilkington and Lakeview, at Bryant
and Lakeview or at South Shore and McVey
Mr. Schmitz spoke of an overhaul of the City Charter in the form of government changes. He
mentioned different Boards and Commissions than the existing ones, which addressed
telecommunications, housing and social issues. He saw a green necklace of trails throughout the
city, Tryon Creek linked to the riverfront, a Riverwalk from Tryon Creek to West Linn, and trails
connecting Old River Road to Stafford and the Tualatin River.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned possibly annexing Dunthorpe as a neighborhood. He discussed the
various ways they might use their limited land to maximize recreational opportunities, such as
putting a lid over Country Club between the two schools and providing a safe pedestrian
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 4 of 2R
July 16, 2001
r� , J
pathway. He spoke of generating their own electricity by tapping into the headwaters at the City
water treatment plant at Gladstone.
Mr. Schmitz discussed the historic landscape at the Lake Oswego entrance at Marylhurst, which
he held they should preserve as a transition zone into Lake Oswego. He spoke of turning the 12 -
block Stampher Road area near the bay at the foot of Tryon Creek into a recreational campus
with a marina, a boardwalk, restaurants, and pool and tennis courts.
Mr. Schmitz described a new arts and cultural center to replace the aging Lakewood Center. He
saw the east end of Lakewood Bay free of buildings with a promenade from the old bank
building to the north shore and Millennium Park. He mentioned an in -city transit system.
Mr. Schmitz characterized Lake Oswego as the `Rome of the Northwest.' He spoke of
capitalizing on water, the ingredient essential to the essence of the community, with its two rivers
and a lake. He suggested having a water element at the Boones Ferry/Terwilliger entrance to the
city.
• Red Flags
Mr. Hertzberg asked if any one heard anything mentioned that triggered a red flag. Councilors
McPeak and Turchi each said no to Councilor Rohde's suggestion of a golf course at Luscher
Farm. Councilor Schoen spoke to putting housing on the existing and obsolete golf course
while expanding the other golf course to serve as a revenue generator.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned her experience at the County with their high initial investment
in a golf course scheduled to open next spring, which could pay for all the parks programs in
Clackamas County. She commented that she did not know that a new golf course was the
highest priority for the community.
Mr. Hertzberg asked the Council members to place dots next to the vision items where each felt
the Council's energy should be spent.
• Stafford
Councilor McPeak indicated that, although she did not want Stafford in the city, when the time
came that it might come in, she did not want them trying to recreate what they now liked about
Lake Oswego. She spoke to taking the opportunity to create new neighborhoods that would
provide both density and a good life using the ideas of New Urbanism. She argued that they
could keep the Stafford area beautiful without R-15 zoning.
Councilor Schoen commented that he thought that people would be surprised at how little
density Stafford yielded, given the buffer zones now required for stream corridors and the
amount of open space that the City already owned. He held that it would be a challenge to
develop density under any circumstances.
Mayor Hammerstad noted the upcoming opportunity to address this issue with the Metro
Council. She indicated that the City's argument about keeping Stafford out of the urban growth
boundary rested on a lack of productivity, that developing it would not garner the number of
housing units that Metro was looking for. She mentioned the City's concentration on purchasing
open space, its desire to plan the area with the concepts of SMART growth, New Urbanism and
sustainability, and the City's desire to have jurisdiction.
Councilor Graham spoke to paying attention to the plans of other cities for their areas within
Stafford that would impact Lake Oswego, such as the second Kruse Way area Tualatin wanted to
create but without the ambience and preservation of open space. Councilor McPeak agreed that
they needed to work out the various problems but spoke to keeping in mind that locating jobs in
the area close to the housing would reduce the potential traffic congestion at the bridge.
• Moving towards the future
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes
July 16, 2001
Page 5 of 28
53
Mr. Hertzberg asked the Council members to write down the one thing that the Council could
do in the next 1.5 years that would make the biggest difference in moving them towards the
common vision of the future.
Councilor Turchi spoke to acquiring the financial and physical resources they needed in order
to allow these things to happen.
Councilor Graham read `Keeping in mind the money remaining for purchase of open space and
moving quickly on acquisition, we forge ahead with the redevelopment of the entire downtown
on this side of Lake Oswego."
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to engaging the public effectively with the goal of developing
community and financial support for these future projects. She described `effectively' as making
the public feel as though they had a genuine contribution to the process.
Councilor Rohde held that the Council's ability to expand the redevelopment district would
accomplish three items on the list: the transit, the river district and the Foothills Road area mixed
use development.
Councilor McPeak concurred with Councilor Rohde that the expansion of the redevelopment
district was key. She commented that Councilor Turchi's comment was a good basic view of
what must underlie any of the Council's selections. Councilor Schoen agreed that the expansion
of the Eastside redevelopment district was the one single thing they needed to do to move
forward.
Councilor Hoffman discussed creating community support through a community visioning
process modeled after the Oregon visioning project.
Mr. Hertzberg summarized the list as acquiring the resources, marshalling the resources and
forging ahead on the critical expansion of the redevelopment district. He concurred that
community support would be essential in order to accomplish these things.
Mr. Hertzberg directed the discussion back to the future vision, per Councilor Turchi's
request.
Councilor Turchi pointed out that a tangible system, such as a river district or a pathway,
affected people once it was built. He spoke to first building the kinds of things that made for a
higher quality of life, as opposed to starting by identifying what people needed or wanted. He
referenced Mr. Schmitz's comments about reorganizing the City government in hypothesizing a
structure that dealt with the human quality of living in a city, and how the government could
influence that. He held that it would accomplish the same objective but start in a different place.
Councilor Turchi noted Councilor Hoffman's approach of starting with the vision of what the
people needed and wanted and what the City could do to encourage that. He held that that
approach could also yield tangible results. He suggested working in both directions, starting
from the tangibles and from the vision.
Councilor Schoen commented that, while he concurred with citizen involvement, the Council
needed to take leadership and move forward with things that improved the duality of life in Lake
Oswego, even when a minority fought to prevent change. He recalled the discussion of the
redevelopment of Blocks 136, 137 and 138 two years ago, which a group of people opposed
because they did not want Lake Oswego to change from a village of 15,000.
Mayor Hammerstad recounted the City of Milwaukie's 1995 visioning process, which the City
felt had been successful in getting citizen input from the neighborhoods. Yet, when the tangible
offer of light rail through Milwaukie came, three members of the City Council who had engaged
in the visioning process and thought they had been close to the grass roots were recalled. She
said that soured her on the visioning process because it took an enormous amount of time, energy
and money but in the end, it did not make any difference.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 6 of 28
July 16, 2001 r
Mayor Hammerstad discussed the role of leadership in taking advantage of opportunities to
improve people's lives while not getting so far out in front that the leaders lost everyone.
Mr. Hertzberg directed the discussion to identifying concrete ways to engage the public.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned Councilor Hoffman's suggestion that the Council members go
to different groups to hear different opinions than they usually heard. She pointed out that if
people did not know what was going on, then they made up what was going on, so it was
important for the City to make the information available first. She indicated that she did not
want to have the same thing happen with the redevelopment district as happened with the library.
She commented that, while she was not enthusiastic about the visioning process, she did want to
talk about how to engage the public effectively in order to reach the goal.
Councilor Rohde described the Council reaching a conclusion on its goal, presenting a unified
message, and engaging the public with its leadership as an effective means of reaching the goal.
Councilor McPeak concurred. She described it as a combination of being brave enough to take
the risk and hope that they could educate the public to understand the idea. She spoke of the
ability to acknowledge when the public did not want something, to give it up and to move on as
an essential element of the process.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that they needed to be careful about who `they' was, as it could
be simply a small group of people pressuring the Council and talking with the media on a given
issue. She discussed the importance of going through a public process. She pointed out that they
needed to find the balance between providing leadership and engaging the public so that the
people did not feel like a Council proposal was a done deal and that the Council would not listen
to them.
Councilor Hoffman spoke to the Council agreeing as a group on what the common factors were
in whatever process it used. He mentioned tax money being a primary factor needed to get
projects done, which meant that they had to get the community to support their projects. He
described going out to the community leaders or establishing a task force for community leaders
who were movers and shakers in the private sector as ways of doing these things.
Councilor Graham spoke to making sure that people understood that the things that the Council
has accomplished in the past came out of the Council working towards its vision. She discussed
the two reactions the community had to Council actions. Some people laughed at things that the
Council did, such as the traffic -calming device at the entrance to First Addition or Arts
Downtown, while others supported those same actions.
Councilor Graham observed that the reality was that the Council could not satisfy all of the
people all of the time. She held that, whether or not the public shared the Council's vision, the
Council needed to keep pursuing its goals.
Councilor Rohde commented that with Arts Downtown, Councilor Hoffman proposed the idea
and worked to muster the forces to accomplish it, rather than asking if the City should do it. He
spoke to the Council defining what it wanted to do and then working with the appropriate people
to make sure that it was successful. He concurred with Councilor McPeak that the Council took
a risk in proceeding with Arts Downtown.
Councilor Schoen spoke to using the Crandall/Arambula study to introduce to the community
the Council's vision of how to build the Lake Oswego community.
Councilor Hoffman commented that the Arts Downtown project was a success because Mr.
Schmitz came up with the money and the staff. Councilor McPeak disagreed that that was the
reason for its success, arguing that if it had been a bad idea, the money would have proven that.
It had to be a good idea initially in order to be so successful.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 7 of 28
July 16, 2001
55
Mr. Hertzberg directed the discussion to the question of how to find the balance between
exercising leadership and vision and inspiring the community support necessary to get the
financial support to implement the vision.
Councilor McPeak discussed the two recent successes of Arts Downtown and the Farmers
Market. She pointed out that most people would have opposed both of them but Mr. Schmitz
had a vision for the market and Councilor Hoffman had a vision for Arts Downtown. She spoke
to the Council deciding which battle it wanted to fight. She held that there had to be a limited
number and that they should pick ones that the Council thought had a reasonable chance of
success.
Councilor Rohde described two important elements in the Arts Downtown and the Farmers
Market: a small investment by the City resulting in a huge investment by outside contributors.
He spoke to the City continuing to use its limited resources to facilitate outside contributions that
were far in excess of what the City could do itself.
Councilor Turchi spoke to thinking bigger as opposed to smaller. He cited the School District
promising something to everyone in its latest bond measure along with a promise to engage the
community in the process of deciding how to spend the money. He listed the streets and
infrastructure, human capital, investing in recreation, intellectual capital of the community and
beautification of the community as examples of the kinds of things that would tie together into a
broader net that people would support if the City did a good job.
Councilor McPeak concurred but reiterated that the Council needed to pick its battles because
of the unlimited possibilities.
Councilor Graham referenced Councilor Rohde's comment about the small amount of money
invested in Arts Downtown. She indicated that that was not a universal majority feeling, as she
was hearing people question the City `wasting' $25,000 on the project.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she thought that the Council was still on track with the
goals it set in January. She mentioned the Council's realization over the last six months that,
while they could accomplish some things by simply saying that they were going to do them,
there might also be a price to pay.
Councilor Rohde commented that one reason why the Council has gotten along so well was
because it has not had to make a major controversial decision yet. He indicated that he thought it
possible that the redevelopment issue might bring out an angry public.
4. 2001 COUNCIL GOALS
Mr. Hertzberg indicated that they would go through each of the goals, hear an update from staff
on the current status and decide if they negded to make any modifications, additions or deletions.
I. Transportation
A. To come to agreement on a funding mechanism for streets in 2001
Councilor McPeak mentioned her concern that the Council has made no headway on this goal,
referencing the negative press about Portland. Councilor Rohde explained that the Council had
to wait until after the legislature adjourned because there had been attempts to integrate the
preemption of local authority to implement street utility fees into some last minute bills.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned talking with Mr. Schmitz about using a citizens panel selected
at random to look at the range of transportation options available as a means of finding out
whether educating citizens and providing them information would yield a recommendation from
citizens for a street utility fee. She indicated to Councilor McPeak that she thought they could
get the citizen input by the end of the year, and that they would ask the Transportation Advisory
Board separately for its recommendation.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 8 of 28
July 16, 2001
56
B. To reach a regional agreement on the Willamette Shore Rail line in 2001
Councilor Rohde contended that they have begun to achieve this regional agreement. He cited
the $500,000 they would receive for the feasibility study as evidence that the region agreed to
give the railway a high priority. He noted that the line was in the Regional Transportation Plan
with solid support from Metro, Tri -Met and Portland for its use as a transportation corridor. He
observed that what they have not done is get, agreement on funding the annual maintenance.
Mayor Hammerstad described the $500,000 and bringing Tri -Met on board as two major pieces
they achieved this year. She spoke to working harder on another important part, getting their
partners to contribute towards the line maintenance. Councilor Rohde clarified that the only
partner not on board was Multnomah County. He said that the problem was that the Council's
policy said that unless everyone was on board, neither was Lake Oswego. He suggested talking
with Multnomah County Commission Chair Diane Lynn now that Multnomah County approved
its budget.
Councilor Rohde spoke to initiating the work on the commuter rail this year. He noted that the
funding sources were in place for the Wilsonville -Beaverton commuter rail line. He observed
that while the Sherwood-Milwaukie commuter rail project was a long way off, they needed to
ride the wave of commuter rail success so that those behind the Wilsonville -Beaverton line did
not forget that they supported them at the regional table and that the Sherwood-Milwaukie line
was a logical extension of their program.
Mr. Hertzberg noted that the missing piece in accomplishing this 2001 goal was getting
financial support from Multnomah County for the maintenance.
C. Adopt mode split/connectivity.
Ms. Heisler reported that the Planning Commission had a work session on this issue and asked
staff to bring it back in August for a public hearing. She indicated that the staff did come up with
alternate language that was acceptable to Metro. She mentioned the recommendations to remove
the maps, which apparently had been a sticking point. She said that the Commission agreed to
postpone the developments allowed ministerially, such as gazebos and detached garages, which
would have been included in the connectivity review.
Councilors Schoen and McPeak each indicated that he/she could vote for the proposal now.
D. Make a decision on funding for street calming devices
Councilor McPeak noted that the Council made this decision.
11. Open Space/Parks and Recreation
A. Open Space acquisitions
Mr. Schmitz reported that they have spent $2 million and had $2 million left to spend.
B. Adopt Open Space Master Plan
Mr. Hertzberg noted that the Council accomplished this goal.
C. Adopt Parks and Recreation Masten Plan
Mr. Jordan reported that the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board was meeting on the plan next
week, which it intended to follow with a joint meeting of PRAB, Natural Resources Advisory
Board and Team Sports Advisory C oinmittee before sending it to the Council.
D. Adopt Canal Acres Plan
Mr. Hertzberg noted that the Council accomplished this goal.
III. City/LOSD Common Interests
A. Joint Library
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes
July 16, 2001
Page 9 of 28
57
Councilor McPeak requested that those Council members who have not read the 1995
consultant study on the library do so. Mayor Hammerstad noted that it was seven years old.
Councilor Hoffman mentioned Mr. Jordan's analysis of the possible sites. Councilor Turchi
said that he would like to see that report.
Mayor Hammerstad said that she and Mr: Schmitz would meet with Lake Oswego School
District Chair Marianne Carter and Superintendent Bill Korach to discuss the composition of the
joint task force to look at the library. She expressed her hope that those applying would
represent a wide variety of backgrounds and points of view. She commented that the issues that
the Library Board did not look at because it disagreed with the concept still needed to be looked
at.
Mayor Hammerstad agreed to Councilor Rohde's suggestion to change the wording of the
goal to say, "explore the feasibility of a joint library." Councilor Rohde pointed out that "joint
library" by itself implied that the goal was to build a joint library.
The Council discussed the timeline. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the District has said
that they would design the library to accommodate a possible joint community library but if that
did not happen, they could adjust to a larger library.
Councilor McPeak questioned how they could obtain people for the Task Force who have not
already made up their minds on the library. ,Mayor Hammerstad said that they would use an
open application process. She observed that there was a lot of interest in this issue.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that, as far as the well being of the city was concerned, having
a joint library with the District did not matter because most people were happy with the current
library; it was the Library Advisory Board that wanted a new library. She noted that there was
not a hue and cry for more library services, which indicated that this joint library might not
happen.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she saw a joint library as a logical community use coming
out of the $85 million bond that would serve the community and enhance the services. She held
that if this was not something that was sought after by the community, then it did not have to
happen, as it did not rise to the level of importance of clean water or a redevelopment district.
Councilor Schoen commented that the worse case scenario was ending up with 94 additional
computer stations, which the City could probably make arrangements for the public to use.
Councilor Graham reported that, with the departure of Martin Jacobs from the Library
Advisory Board, her sense was that the newest members were receptive to exploring an
enhanced -shared facility and the others were willing to work with it. Mayor Hammerstad
mentioned hearing that Ben Sostrin was contemplating resigning also.
Mr. Hertzberg asked what specific action was the Council taking towards the goal of exploring
the feasibility of a joint library. Mayor Hammerstad said that they were meeting with the
School District to appoint a task force to take an independent look at the feasibility of a joint
library. She indicated that the District designed their library to accommodate the possibility of a
shared library.
Mayor Hammerstad said that the City would have the task force applications out in three
weeks. She mentioned a task force report by the end of the year with a Council decision in the
first quarter of next year, following public hearings. She confirmed that the Council would
approve the setting up of the task force on August 7; the School Board would do the same at its
meeting. She indicated that the Library Advisory Board would be represented on the task force.
Councilor Graham commented that they could not ignore the ex -members of the Library
Advisory Board, as indicated by the "Letter to the Editor" last Thursday. She confirmed to
Councilor Schoen that the remaining members have apparently agreed to study the issue but
observed that it was still a festering issue.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 10 of 28
July 16, 2001 5 b
Councilor Rohde commented that the exterior influences regarding the library might be what
were necessary in order to answer the question of whether they needed a new library. He said
that he got no sense from the community that the general populace thought that the city needed a
new library. He mentioned his suspicion that, had they continued the bi-annual community
surveys, the results would have continued to rate the library highest among all City facilities.
Councilor Graham mentioned hearing the library directors talk about expanding services, which
the Friends and the Library Advisory Board interpreted as the City needed a new library to
provide those services rather than figuring out how to expand services within the existing library.
She said that the library world was talking about the need for a library but the public was
oblivious to the possibilities because they were happy with the way it was.
Mr. Hertzberg confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that at the meeting on the library that he
facilitated over a year ago, there was no consensus, only numerous different opinions.
Councilor Turchi spoke to taking advantage of the library facilities at the School District in
order to take the pressure off the City library at different times during the day. He mentioned the
evenings and weekends when the students used the City library. He noted that there might be
other projects that they needed to build first.
Councilor Turchi discussed his skepticism about a joint library. He said that he agreed with the
District comment that it was not certain that it wanted patrons using the library during the day
when school was in session. He pointed but that such a restriction would preclude a shared use
library from being a full-service library for the community. He spoke to looking at it as a smaller
stopgap measure for sustaining the current library until they could prioritize a list of the projects
that they wanted to do.
Councilor McPeak indicated that she was not certain in her own mind that they should proceed,
which was why she liked Councilor Rohde's rephrasing of the goal to "explore the feasibility of
a joint library." She said that she did not think that the Council has had the discussion yet.
Councilor Turchi commented that he was not certain either, although he saw some value to
their patrons with the City helping to keep it open so that the students did not have to drive to
Portland.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that whenever the Council moved forward on something, such as
the redevelopment district, there would be naysayers. She cautioned the Council not to give up
too soon, and to explore the feasibility in order to get good information on the pros and cons.
She remarked that if it turned out that the library was something that the public was genuinely
not interested in, then it was not worth proceeding on. However, if there was interest and it was
feasible, then she urged the Council to stay with it.
Councilor Hoffman spoke to waiting until, the first quarter of next year to learn the results of the
feasibility research, and then possibly using that as a launching pad for a new library/community
center.
Mr. Hertzberg noted that the goal was for the Council to reach a decision by December 31.
B. New Joint Use Agreement
Mr. Schmitz indicated that they were waiting on the School District's decision.
C. Consider Fire Protection Retrofit for Schools
Mr. Powell said that staff needed to meet with Dr. Korach on the technical aspects of the
intergovernmental agreement. Iie indicated to Councilor Schoen that the Council already
decided on the funding for the retrofit. He confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the goal was to
sign the agreement. He reviewed the process that would result in a resolution authorizing the
mayor to sign the agreement.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 11 ol'28
July 16, 2001
Mr. Schmitz stated that the IGA told the District that the City was willing to put up "X" amount
of money towards retrofitting the facilities as they went through remodeling. The City would
have to make budget appropriations in subsequent years. He indicated to Councilor Rohde that
the goal was now to finalize the IGA with the District.
D. Identify long-term common interests
Mayor Hammerstad reported that the Lake Oswego School District Liaison Committee
(herself, Councilor Schoen and Mr. Schmitz) has been meeting quarterly as a small joint work
group with their respective counterparts at the District. She mentioned Mr. Powell's request to
remove this committee as a formal Council committee.
Councilor Rohde moved to remove the Lake Oswego School District Committee from the
lists of the Council committees and to repeal any express or implied appointments to such
committee because communications between the Mayor and the City Manager and their
School District counterparts were informal and did not require a quorum and did not
constitute a public body, and operated to make decisions or recommendations to the City
Council, the relaying of such communications as a committee was inaccurate and
misleading. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hoffman that this came up because a citizen asked why the
City did not notice the meetings of this committee. He pointed out that listing it as an inter-
governmental committee conveyed the impression that it was an appointed body, which by
quorum could make recommendations, as opposed to an informal meeting of the Mayor and the
City Manager with their counterparts in the District.
Mr. Powell explained that removing it from the list effectively dissolved the committee. He
noted that the Mayor and the City Manager could meet with their District counterparts whenever
they wanted to anyway.
A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Ilannuerstad, Councilors
Graham, Hoffman, McPeak, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voting in favor. 17-01
IV. East End
A. New East End Plan
Mr. Schmitz said that the plan was underway; the goal remained to adopt it by the end of the
year. He informed Councilor Hoffman that the next consultant report was due in September.
He indicated that the plan would mention the expansion of the renewal district, as would the
Foothills plan, but they were not the same thing. He confirmed to Councilor Rohde that staff
did work out a timeline to update the plan by the end of the year.
Mayor Hammerstad confirmed that the expansion of the district was separate from adopting the
East End plan. She indicated that next year the Council would have the goal to expand the
district, which would include a public process.
Councilor Schoen asked how they could adopt a new East End plan before expanding the
district. Mr. Schmitz said that they could state in the plan that a goal was to expand the district;
it was similar to stating in the Comprehensive Plan that the City had a goal of annexing territory.
He indicated to Councilor Rohde that they could not adopt the expansion by the end of the year
because of the time required to go through the process.
B. Reach agreement on Block 138
Mr. Hertzberg noted that the Council accomplished this goal.
C. First Street between A and B Avenues redesign.
Mr. Schmitz said that staff scheduled the bid award at a special LORA meeting in two weeks;
the project would start in August.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 12 of 28
July 16, 2001
60
D. Attempt to reach agreement on street improvements on the west side of First Avenue
between Millennium Plaza Park and A Avenue
Mr. Schmitz indicated that this goal might not be attainable this year; the Mayor would continue
her conversations with Mr. Wizer.
V. E -Government
Mr. Schmitz noted that the budget was approved for some of the equipment. Jane McGarvin,
Deputy City Recorder, indicated that they have purchased the scanner but it was not hooked up
yet.
Mr. Jordan reported that the budget summaries of all the funds were on line. He mentioned that
the lien searches, which used to be done by paper, were now done on the Internet, which meant a
reduction in manpower.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City website had a link to neighborhood
pages, which was available to neighborhood associations. She clarified that the City was doing
the five or six neighborhood pages currently available. She said that the Historic Review
Advisory Board page was online and staff was working on pages for the Natural Resources
Advisory Board and the Planning Commission.
Councilor McPeak mentioned a request from a citizen that the City make neighborhood news,
such a new signal light, easy to find on its website. She suggested including a link to ongoing
construction projects also.
Mr. Jordan commented that there was an art to creating homepages with appropriate links but
not so cluttered that it was confusing and people stopped using it.
VI. Neighborhood Livability and Community Context
A. Adopt density guidelines
Ms. Heisler indicated that the Planning Commission would look at this issue again soon.
B. Adopt neighborhood plans
Mayor Hammerstad commented that after the meeting with the County Commission, she
thought that there were things that they could do in the adoption of the Lake Forest plan. She
suggested that they look at responsibilities when they gave the plan to the County.
Councilor Rohde asked for discussion of adopting the regulatory language necessary for the
implementation of the neighborhood plans. He recalled that this was a concern of all the prior
plans passed: the regulatory language was in the plans but not codified. He clarified to
Councilor Schoen that lie was talking about a different issue than the Lake Forest issues on
unincorporated County land that the Council needed to review with the County.
Ms. Heisler recalled that the Planning Commission held a work session on neighborhood
notification, one of the primary concerns of the Lake Grove neighborhood. She said that the
Commission would have another work session to look at what regulatory pieces have been
suggested in all the plans and to see which different processes would be feasible for the whole
community.
Ms. Heisler mentioned that Lake Grove's request for building orientation guidelines related
directly to the Infill Task Force, which was looking at that issue. She indicated that the other
major concern of Lake Grove was design guidelines specifically for the West End Commercial
District. She said that staff has applied for a TGM grant to work on that.
Ms. Heisler observed that, given the Council discussions on Lake Forest and its discussion with
the County, staff needed to work with the County staff to craft language that was more in line
with what the County could do, and to include an annexation piece with a timeline. Councilor
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 13 of 28
July 16, 2001
Schoen commented that he thought that the County Commissioners challenged the City to bring
the language to them for their review.
Mayor Hammerstad concurred, noting that there was a disconnect between the Commissioners
and the County staff. She spoke to putting the responsibility on the Commissioners and to stop
doing their thinking for them. She noted that Waluga had similar problems to Lake Forest.
Ms. Heisler reported that staff was making some revisions based on Associate Planner Sid Sin's
meeting with the Waluga Steering Committee. She mentioned that the TAB supported one of
Waluga's transportation issues but not the other.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that they have not addressed his issue. He reiterated that what he
has heard from First Addition and Lake Grove is that the Council only went halfway with the
adoption of their plans.
Mr. Powell concurred that there was a sub -issue because of the specific elements, such as the
notification process and the design guidelines. He discussed the long-range picture of whether to
revamp the Comprehensive Plan and to take out all the regulatory policies used as criteria for
major developments, and to codify as regulations whichever policies they wanted to apply. He
held that it was a worthy project but noted that it would not be done by the end of the year, as the
Planning Commission needed to go over it first.
Councilor Rohde recalled that it was been six years since the City initiated the neighborhood
planning process. He suggested holding a meeting to discuss the entire concept of neighborhood
planning, including what the Council's expectations were in the beginning versus where the
program was now.
Councilor Hoffman concurred that holding such a discussion would be worthwhile. He
observed that, for some of them, the concept of neighborhood planning might be a little different
from what it was six years ago. He mentioned Mayor Hammerstad's concern about the
`balkanization' of Lake Oswego and each neighborhood having its own rules. lie pointed out
that something codified as a City regulation had the force of law as opposed to the suggestions of
guidelines.
Councilor McPeak observed that six years ago they began the discussion with good faith on all
sides; over time, they learned that there were some problems that the City could get into with
codifying parts of the neighborhood plans. She commented that the Council unintentionally
misled the neighborhoods. She supported holding a discussion soon.
Councilor Turchi characterized the issue as whether or not the neighborhood plans negated the
overall Comprehensive Plan. He said that the question was should the Council tell the
neighborhoods to look at the Comprehensive Plan and develop their plans within that umbrella or
should the Council allow the neighborhoods to go beyond the Comprehensive Plan if they felt it
was inadequate to protect their neighborhood.
Councilor Schoen noted that the Council challenged the last few neighborhood plans to be more
cognizant of the Comprehensive Plan so that the neighborhoods did not include regulatory
information in their plans.
Councilor Hoffman placed this issue in the first or second quarter of next year. He mentioned
that the Infill Task Force would give the Council some guidelines in terms of what the problem
was. He observed that the neighborhood's were trying to protect themselves against change. He
noted that some Councilors saw the Comprehensive plan as the bible of development as opposed
to the neighborhood plans.
Councilor Rohde spoke to bringing in some of those who were involved six years ago, such as
Tom Coffee, to recall what the expectations were at the beginning of the program. He indicated
to Councilor Schoen that he was not talking about revising the Comprehensive Plan next year.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 14 of 28
July 16, 2001
6?
He reiterated that it would be valuable to the Council to have a study session ( m the overall
neighborhood planning process, including the historical perspective.
The Council agreed on holding a study session in the fall, including staff presentation of the
various issues. Mayor Hammerstad suggested engaging the Planning Commission in that
discussion to provide context and the public view. Mr. Powell mentioned a two-step discussion:
the neighborhood plan issue and what they should put in the Code.
C. Revise Zoning Code Variances
Ms. Heisler recalled that the Lake Corporation would not support the variance language
prepared by staff. She indicated that staff pursued contacting the Lake Corporation and gave
them some research they had done on shoreline management zoning. The Lake Corporation was
now very interested in obtaining its own zone. She said that the Corporation would contact the
City when they finished studying the matter.
Ms. Heisler posed the question: if the Council thought that the variance language was a good
piece of legislation that should be in place, how important was it to wait for the Lake
Corporation's support? She said that many people in the community and the developers
supported it as a better process; the only stumbling block has been the Lake Corporation.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that the,conversations she has had with Lake Corporation
members indicated that the City has done a good education job because they were beginning to
see that the idea had merit.
Councilor Rohde indicated that he preferred to wait on taking action until the City heard back
from the Lake Corporation on whether they would support it. Mayor Hammerstad concurred,
noting that the City has let the Corporation believe that it would have some input.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Schoen that this new language outlining a process in the
criteria for dealing with variances would apply citywide, including First Addition and Lake
Grove. Mr. Powell said that the basic change was simplifying the process for the simple
variances; the bigger variances would be harder to get.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Schoen that the height and footprint issues in First Addition
and Lake Grove would be addressed through the Infill Task Force recommendations.
D. Adopt Pathways program
Mr. Jordan indicated that the Council has started moving in the direction of adopting a
pathways program. The Council did appropriate some money for this program, which
historically has focused on the pedestrian safety issues near schools. He mentioned the
Engineering Department meetings with.44e School District representatives to discuss how to
connect pathways around the schools. He noted the funding for the pathway at Palisades.
E. Traffic calming
Mr. Hertzberg noted that the Council addressed this goal earlier.
F. Compatibility
Ms. Heisler said that the Infill Task Force, set up by Council, would hold its third meeting this
Thursday. She reported that they looked in depth at what was going on in First Addition and
Lake Grove and discussed the pros and cons of design guidelines versus zoning standards. She
indicated that they were still on track to finish their report to the Planning Commission and the
Development Review Commission, which should have their recommendations for the Council by
the end of the year.
Ms. Heisler confirmed that the adoption of the recommendations in the first quarter of next year
would be more realistic than adoption by the end of the year.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 15 of 28
July 16, 2001
6.3
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that the meetings have had excellent attendance
with the alternatives showing up in addition to the committee members. Councilor Graham
mentioned hearing at LONAC that these meetings were not well attended. Ms. Heisler said that
the only representative who has not shown up was the builder representative, Jim Morton.
Councilor Schoen suggested contacting Mr. Morton to ask him to send someone else if he could
not make it.
G. Initiate affordable housing guidelines
Mr. Hertzberg suggested asking Mr. Schmitz about this goal when he returned.
• Mr. Hertzberg recessed the meeting for lunch at 12:05 p.m.
• Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the meeting at 1:10 p.m.
4. 2001 COUNCIL GOALS
VI. Neighborhood Livability and Community Context
G. Initiate affordable housing; guidelines
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, reported that Mr. Bunch has not done much on the affordable
housing question, as he has been working,on sustainability and the Foothills Road project. He
indicated that Mr. Bunch would start looking for sites for affordable housing once he returned
from vacation.
Councilor Hoffman clarified to Councilor Turchi that the standard mentioned by Mr. Schmitz
was not a Metro requirement but rather a suggestion that each city within the Metro region accept
a certain percentage of affordable housing.
Councilor Rohde indicated to Councilor Graham that the bill Portland Commissioner Eric
Sten supported never made it out of committee. He mentioned that affordable housing was a
topic at the Livable Oregon conference. He said that when he spoke up at the breakout session
about the issue of Lake Oswego and affordable housing, one affordable housing developer was
shocked to hear that Lake Oswego was interested in discussing the issue. He said that she gave
him some information and offered to make a presentation to the Council on affordable housing
projects she has done in the region.
Councilor Rohde commented that much Qf.that discussion focused on the need to redefine the
debate, similar to the need to redefine the density debate. He noted that most people linked
affordable housing to housing projects and drug use; when agencies called it `cheaper housing'
or some other term, they found greater acceptance of it.
G
5. BOARD AND COMMISSIONS
A. Youth Council
Councilor Turchi reported that he and Councilor Hoffman would meet during the first two
weeks of August to look at the guidelines and figure out a process for next year.
B. Initial Interview process
Mr. Hertzberg noted the three sub -issues revolving around boards and commissions: the initial
interview process, the reappointment process and term limits.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that this was a continuation of the January discussion, now that they
have had the appointment process in place for a while. She recalled the two points of view:
Councilor Rohde's preference to interview everyone versus using a paper screening method or a
preliminary screening method by the advisory board when there were many applicants. She
spoke in support of paper or preliminary screening.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 16 of 28
July 16, 2001
64
Councilor McPeak spoke to the process involving more Councilors. She favored a paper
screening process, observing that when she served on the interview committee, she could have
predicted which applicants would be selected based on the paperwork. She said that they would
not need the paper screening process unless they received enough applications to spread the
interviews over two days, something that has happened only once.
Councilor McPeak held that the community would be better served with term limits.
Councilor Hoffman indicated that he had no problem reducing the number of applicants to three
to six based upon their application forms. He spoke to his frustration with having; only 10 to 15
minutes to talk to people. He said that he preferred having 15 to 20 minutes to talk to three
people as opposed to 15 minutes to talk to six or more people. He said that, like Councilor
McPeak, he would like to talk to the first three or four applicants.
Councilor Rohde argued that, from the perspective of the applicants, the process of meeting
face-to-face with the Council as part of getting on a Board or Commission was valuable. He
contended that using a paper -screening process hurt the Council's interaction with the
community more than it helped the Council's scheduling problem. He spoke to the Council
getting over its scheduling problem and doing the right thing, which was interviewing all the
applicants. He argued that there was value to the Council in interviewing everyone in terms of
asking questions not answered by reading the resume.
Councilor Graham concurred with Councilor Rohde that they should interview all applicants.
She pointed out that this was not like applying for a college where an applicant either met the
criteria or did not meet it; this was for an open community participation, and the action of
applying indicated interest on the part of the applicant.
Councilor Graham said that she preferred talking to people because not everyone
communicated effectively in writing. She indicated that, in her experience, her opinion based on
the application could change after talking to the person. She spoke to spending whatever time
was necessary to interview the applicants.
Mayor I-lammerstad argued that taking the time necessary was nice in theory but did not work
in practice. She observed that the Council has held up some appointments for months because it
could not get enough people to interview in a timely manner.
Councilor Rohde disagreed that it hurt to delay the appointments. He said that the only time in
his five years on the Council that there has been a problem with the interviews was this year with
the overwhelming number of applications for the Transportation Advisory Board. He argued that
that high number of applicants was the exception, and not the rule.
Councilor Schoen discussed his frustration with the mechanics of the process. He spoke to
interviewing people in the mornings as well as the evenings.
Councilor Turchi noted that he could take on more of the interviewing now. He discussed his
frustration with the lack of consistency in the interviews. He commented that he did not think
that the Council knew what it was looking for or asked questions that would elicit the appropriate
responses. He indicated that he did not think that the interviews in which he participated were
well done.
Councilor Rohde concurred. He argued that the interview process allowed the Council to
determine whether an applicant was compatible, which was not something it could determine by
reading the application. He agreed that they needed decide before the interviews what they were
looking for and to ask the same questions of each applicant.
Councilor Graham agreed with Councilor Schoen on scheduling some interviews in the
mornings in order to avoid two to three hours of marathon interviewing in the evening.
Councilor McPeak clarified that she was not suggesting that they select people based on the
paperwork; she was suggesting that they keep the interview numbers below a certain maximum
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 17 of 28
July 16, 2001
by using a paper screening process. She spoke in support of a number that could be handled by a
small group of Councilors in one interview session as opposed to multiple sessions. She
contended that one session presented a fairer appearance than multiple sessions.
Councilor Turehi concurred with Councilor Rohde's point that the applicants believed that they
were doing the City a favor, and not vice versa. He pointed out that telling someone who came
in to do the Council a favor that the Council did not want to talk to him/her did not present a
good appearance.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested a process whereby the interview committee for a board met to
do some pre-screening based on the applications and at the same time developed questions and
decided what it was looking for. She held that this would be a more efficient way to interview
for an advisory committee. She mentioned,that, even if they did not exceed a reasonable number
of applications, the committee could meet prior to the interviews to develop the questions.
Mayor Hammerstad explained that she was looking to make this process as efficient as possible
while obtaining the best people they could. She commented that they did not want to tell
someone that the City would keep his/her resume on file if the Council were never going to
consider them. She characterized the current process as time consuming and tedious. She
indicated that she supported Councilor McPeak's suggested alternative but included more in the
pre-screening process.
Councilor McPeak moved to limit the number of candidates who would have actual
interviews for Board and Commission vacancies to eight by means of a review of the
applications by all Council members. There was no second.
Councilor McPeak clarified to Councilor Rohde that the process she had in mind was to create
a matrix and to interview those who got the top eight votes. She held that they did not need to
discuss the paperwork, as they could all make up their own minds.
Councilor Schoen indicated that he did not want to limit the number of applicants interviewed.
He concurred with Councilor Rohde that if people took the time to apply to serve on a Board or
Commission, then the Council had an obligation to listen to them, no matter how poorly
qualified they might be. He pointed out that this was a small community and word would get
around if some people were not selected to begin with.
Mr. Hertzberg noted that there appeared to be general agreement that everyone should be
interviewed. He directed the discussion to the pre -interview process.
Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that those who did not want to limit the interviews needed to
be willing to commit the time necessary to conduct the interviews, as presently the burden was
falling on a couple of people. Mr. Hertzberg mentioned Councilor Schoen's suggestion to hold
interviews in the morning and Councilor Turchi's statement that he had more time available now.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested that whoever was on the interview committee also commit to
taking time to decide among the committee members what they were looking for on the Board
and develop their questions.
Councilor Rohde asked if the Council as a whole should discuss what it expected on its boards
and give direction to the interview committee. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the members
not on the interview committee give input on what they would like to see when Shirley sent out
the recruitment for the interview committee.
Councilor Graham asked if there was a way to schedule the evening interviews so that they did
not conflict with the meeting nights of Boards and Commissions. She observed that sometimes
there was a conflict for a Council liaison between doing the interviews and attending their Board
or Commission meeting. Councilor McPeak remarked that that would be tough to do.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 18 of 28
July 16, 2001
66
C. Reappointment process and term limits
Councilor McPeak indicated that, while she did not favor term limits for elected officials (as
they had to go through the elections process periodically), she felt that the Boards and
Commission appointments were an entirely different situation. She observed that not re-
appointing someone to a Board and Commission was so awkward that the Council tended simply
to reappoint people if they applied for reappointment. She argued that term limits would help
alleviate that problem. She clarified to Councilor Turchi that she meant a term limit of two
terms of three years.
Mayor Hammerstad held that term limits worked well except when a Board or Commission
had a lot of turnover, especially on a complicated committee like the Development Review
Commission or the Planning Commission, because they lost the historical perspective. She
spoke to allowing an exception to the two -term limit for special circumstances as decided by the
Council.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Graham that staggering the terms did not
necessarily take care of that problem because members resigned early. She assured Councilor
McPeak that, in her experience, the exception did not become the rule when allowed as a bridge
where necessary.
Councilor Rohde recalled that the Council has refreshened Boards and Commissions when
necessary, although it was not an easy thing to do. He argued that the Council should not hide
behind term limits to do its dirty work but rather it should accept its responsibility to move
people off boards when they were no longer productive members of that board.
Councilor Hoffman discussed his frustration with feeling obligated to reappoint two candidates
reapplying for appointment when two other new candidates might be better qualified. He spoke
in support of term limits as a way to get fresh views on the Board, as six years was a long time
for one person.
Councilor Schoen spoke in support of term limits with the codicil that the Council could
reappoint under special circumstances.
Councilor Graham indicated her support of a two -term limit. She suggested reducing the term
length from three years to two years.
Councilor Turchi indicated that if they reduced the term length, then he would support limiting
the number of interviews. He spoke to including a statement in the information sent out to
applicants that it was the Council's policy to bring in new people to the committees; if the
Council had an opportunity to appoint new people over re -appointing current members, it would
do so.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that few of those on the Boards and Commissions have served for
more than two terms. He questioned whether this was really a problem, as the turnover was
relatively high. He argued that they did not have a problem with people sitting on a Board for a
decade, as people could get burnt out with the Boards and Commissions too.
Mr. Hertzberg summarized the suggested,alternatives: a two -term limit with an exception under
extraordinary circumstances, and articulating,a preference for new people over re -appointing
existing members.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke against a two-year term length. She argued that it took people
awhile to get up to speed, particularly on the technical committees. She questioned articulating a
preference for new people, as sometimes they might prefer someone with experience, the
technical knowledge and the knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan to a new person.
Councilor Graham observed those members of the Development Review Commission and the
Planning Commission needs more experience. She asked if they could leave those two
Commissions as three-year terms and reduce all the others to two-year terms.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 19 of 28
July 16, 2001
W(
Councilor McPeak commented that Councilor Turchi's point about increased interviewing
responsibilities was a significant negative to her.
Councilor Schoen moved to adopt a Boards and Commissions term limit of two consecutive
terms of three years each, unless there were special considerations as determined by the
City Council. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, McPeak and Iloffman voting
in favor. Councilors Rohde, Turchi and Graham voted against the motion. 14-31
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned Councilor Rohde's suggestion that people asking for
reappointment be required to submit new applications, unless their application was less than six
months old. The Council had no objections.
Dave Powell, City Attorney, asked if the Council was establishing a two -term limit by policy or
by ordinance change. He suggested doing it by policy, as that gave the Council greater flexibility
to change it. The Council agreed that it was a policy change.
The Council discussed Councilor Rohde's question of whether this policy should apply
beginning this date forward or should it grandfather in those already in the second term.
Councilor McPeak pointed out that if the policy did not begin now, it would take a long time to
make the policy change. Councilor Graham supported beginning the policy now.
The Council discussed Councilor Hoffman's suggestion to get input from the Board chairs on
the question of term limits. Councilor Hoffman commented that the Mayor could talk to the
Board chairs at the scheduled meeting. He indicated that if many of the chairs were upset by the
notion, then he would rethink his vote.
Councilor McPeak wondered whether asking the Boards for their input after the Council made
its decision raised the question of who was in charge. She argued that the obligation of the
Council was to do what it thought was best for the City.
Councilor Hoffman said that he has been thinking about the Council's relationships with the
Boards, and Councilor Rohde's compassion in not excluding by resume. He reiterated his
suggestion that the Mayor meet with the Board chairs to ask for their input on these issues of
concern to the Council.
Councilor Hoffman moved to rescind the previous vote. Councilor McPeak seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad,
Councilors Graham, Hoffman, McPeak, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voting in favor. 17-01
Mr. Hertzberg commented that what just happened was not a failure, rather it was a success in
that the Council had the ability to recognize that it had made a mistake.
Councilor McPeak suggested that the Council revisit this issue the morning after the Mayor and
Mr. Schmitz met with the Board and Commission chairs. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that
any Councilor was welcome to attend the:meeting, which would probably be in September.
Councilor Hoffman recalled that Mayor Klammer met with the board chairs three times a year
in order to provide an opportunity for the board chairs to hear what the other boards were doing.
He said that he and Councilor Rohde attended simply to listen. He suggested that Councilors
attending this meeting between Mayor Hammerstad and the board chairs just listen.
D. Relationship between the Council and the Boards and Commissions
1. Orientation and Training
Mr. Powell mentioned that they had a Board and Commission training session two years ago, at
which they discussed the open meeting law. He indicated that usually staff handed the new
members an information packet; there was no formal orientation program. He said that usually
they went into more detail with the Planning Commission, Development Review Commission
and Community Forestry Commission, as those commissions dealt with adjudicated matters.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes,,
July 16, 2001
Page 20 of 28
Councilor McPeak spoke to addressing the need to communicate to the Boards and
Commissions what the Council's view of their role was. She suggested a statement as opposed
to a training session. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the statement staff developed last year,
which the Council handed out to the Library Advisory Board at their joint meeting.
The Council discussed the need for a new member orientation process for the Boards and
Commissions. Councilor Rohde noted that the Chamber had a new member orientation every
six months; the Council could do something similar.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, mentioned that she usually spent three hours
with each new Planning Commissioner going over what the packet did not cover, such as the
individual City projects and what the Commission was currently working on.
Councilor Rohde suggested a half-day training session with two hours on the commonalties
shared by all the Boards and Commissions, and individual breakout sessions conducted by staff
for each Board and Commission.
2. Significant issues to discuss with individual Boards and Commissions
The Council discussed Councilor Rohde's suggestion of inviting a different board each week to
have dinner with the Council prior to the Council meetings. Councilor Rohde pointed out that it
would be an 18 -week rotation. Councilors Hoffman and McPeak held that meeting once a year
with some of the Boards was sufficient. Councilor Hoffman suggested that the Mayor ask the
chairs how often they wanted to meet with the Council. Councilor Rohde suggested that the
Mayor simply inform the Board chairs that they could request a dinner meeting. Councilors
Hoffman and McPeak agreed that that was a better idea.
a. Planning Commission/Development Review Commission
Councilor Hoffman spoke to the Council continuing to meet with these two groups periodically
to discuss land use issues, as they needed to be on the same wavelength with them. He
mentioned the frustration experienced last year by everyone when the Council kept remanding
these Commissions' recommendations. Mayor Hammerstad suggested meeting with them
twice a year.
b. Historic Review Advisory Board
Councilor Rohde discussed the disconnect that the HRAB felt with the Council. He explained
that the Board was not certain what it should be doing, as the 1995 legislature took away its
authority. He commented that, although this Council supported historic homes and buildings as
an important element in the community, the Board needed direction on what it could do to entice
people to preserve historic homes and buildings.
Councilor Graham suggested that the Board explore whether the new bill in the House might
lielp with historic preservation.
Councilor Rohde said that the Board had ideas on what to do; the Council needed to decide
whether to let them proceed. He reiterated that the Board felt that it had no connection with the
Council and that the Council did not understand the issues. I Ic indicated that the Board would
like to act with the support and encouragement of the Council.
Councilor Rohde discussed a project that the Board was interested in: working out a contractual
arrangement with a building inspector who knew how to inspect older buildings because the
1998 Building Code had ridiculous expectations for a renovated 1910 home. 144 mentioned
finding ways to reduce the expense to those preserving historic buildings by eliminating
inspection fees. He reiterated that, because the Board no longer had its `stick' of statutory
authority, it wanted to know what `carrots' it could implement at the City to encourage the
protection of older buildings.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 21 of 28
July 16, 2001
69
Mayor Hammerstad suggested that this was another topic for the meeting with the Board
chairs. She confirmed to Mr. Hertzberg that she would discuss with the Board chair what the
Board wanted to do and how it wanted to connect with the Council.
c. Natural Resources Advisory Board
Councilor Hoffman mentioned that he was caught off guard and offended by a statement that
was critical of the Council for not involving the NRAB earlier in the budget process. He said
that he talked to Jonathan Snell and Chris Roth, and concluded that there was a disconnect with
the Board. He remarked that he has had the perception for years that the NRAB had a chip on its
shoulder and saw the Council as an adversary. He indicated that he told Mr. Snell and Ms. Roth
that this Council was the most supportive of any of the Councils.
Councilor Schoen mentioned that the NRAB did not change their meeting nights from Tuesday.
He agreed that the major issue for the Board was the budget and the Council not funding the
park.
Christ Jordan, Assistant City Manager, reported that he met with NRAB the week before the
budget came to Council and thought that he had appeased them during their discussion about
money for Bryant Woods. He commented that he too had been surprised by the comment. He
described it as a process question, in that by the time staff put the budget together and took it to
the Budget Committee, the budget was on a fast track. He indicated that staff could not move the
process back to January, which meant that this would be a continuing issue with NRAB.
Councilor McPeak asked if the City made it easy to get input from various groups before the
budget process began. She mentioned hearing from another group that they had not known how
to ask for money in the budget process at the right time.
Councilor Schoen described the problem at the NRAB as the Board feeling that the City would
fund Bryant Woods in the CIP for the full $1 million. He commented that the Council told the
Board that the City did not have $1 million for Bryant Woods or any of the other projects that the
Council would like to fund.
Mr. Hertzberg summarized the two issues under discussion: was there a better way for the
Council to communicate about the budget process to all interested parties, and what needed to be
done to communicate more effectively with NRAB at this time?
The Council discussed Councilor Rohde's suggestion that it reconfigure the Budget Committee
so that the citizen members were the chairs of the advisory boards. Mr. Powell said that he
could find out. He indicated that the statute mandated that the Budget Committee have the same
number of citizen members as City Councilors but it did not say anything about the citizen
members not being the chairs of committees.
Mr. Jordan spoke to addressing the NRAB issue through better education of the Boards and
Commissions with respect to the actual budget process. He pointed out that the City Manager
put the budget together, and not the Council. Since the City Manager sent his budget to the
Budget Committee in March or April, those with requests needed to give their input to the City
Manager or the Council before then, as it was difficult to make major changes to the budget after
that point.
Councilor Graham suggested including information on the budget process in the Boards and
Commission orientation. She mentioned a one-page information sheet outlining the budget
process and timeline sent to each advisory board member in a timely fashion.
Councilor McPeak suggested meeting with NRAB soon. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the
dinner meeting with NRAB scheduled for tomorrow.
Councilor Hoffman commented that he foresaw issues coming up on which NRAB might take a
stricter position than the Council wanted to take. He spoke to using Tuesday night to make sure
that the Board was on track with the Council, and that they understood what each other wanted.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 22 of 28
July 16, 2001
7U
d. Transportation Advisory Board
Councilor Rohde described the issue with TAB as the Board was new and did not know how it
fit in. He mentioned that the Board was upset that the City made decisions on transportation
items without asking for its opinion, such as the traffic circle at 4`'' Street and C Avenue and the
curb extension on Evergreen Street. He suggested holding a `what does the Council expect from
it' conversation with the Board. He noted the probable joint meeting of the Council and the
Board to hear the presentation on the Boones Ferry Corridor Study.
e. Library Advisory Board
Councilor Schoen restated Mayor Hammerstad's description of the issue: the Council
challenged the Board to present an evaluation of the pros and cons of the shared use facility,
which the Board has accepted.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned the issue of the `Board government in exile' (John Broderick and
Martin Jacobs) as an issue that the Council needed to discuss with the existing Board.
Mayor Hammerstad confirmed Councilor Graham's assessment that the current Board,
following a number of resignations, was willing to look at the issues involved with the shared
library as well as issues of improved service at the current library. She concurred with Mr.
Schmitz that those who resigned would remain active on the library issue; how to deal with that
situation was another question.
Councilor Schoen concurred with Mayor Hammerstad that the library opposition would be
analogous to the downtown redevelopment opposition. He observed that it was the same people.
Councilor McPeak mentioned her belief that, with respect to the redevelopment opposition, the
City failed to make the facts known, and there was a lot of misinformation as a result. She spoke
to the City doing a good job of presenting the truth in the public arena, and ignoring the
`government in exile' while keeping the information flowing.
Councilor Graham concurred that there was misinformation out there with respect to the shared
use library. She reported that, at the last meeting, when she kept using the words `shared use'
and `let's explore', the Board members acted like they had never heard those words before. She
spoke to the Council continually repeating the phrase `shared use exploration.'
Councilor Graham suggested including a Library Advisory Board member on the joint Task
Force. She pointed out that the two things that the Board saw as a goal were not things that they
could get involved in. She spoke to having the Board take on more important issues within the
library, such as increased senior community outreach, and helping the Board return to the goals it
presented in January.
Councilor Rohde asked if the City needed a Library Advisory Board. Mr. Hertzberg pointed
out that the Board did deal with policy questions. Councilor Graham held that the Board
should get involved in issues like pornography in the library and Internet filters. She mentioned
her understanding that the library currently allowed some chat room use, which was a violation
of library policy.
Councilor McPeak spoke to the Council not having a policy on reappointing Youth Councilors
in order to open the opportunity up to more students. Mayor Hammerstad said that she agreed,
except for this year. She held that the Council did not give this year's Youth Councilors the kind
of opportunity that they should have had; if any wanted to reapply for next year, that was fine.
She concurred with one-year appointments open to juniors and seniors.
Mr. Schmitz raised a pink flag on the Arts Commission. Fle speculated that the Commission
would enter choppy waters in the next 12 months regarding an expansion of the Arts Downtown
program on the West End.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 23 of 28
July 16, 2001
7i
The Council indicated that it was not interested in revising the East End Development
Committee, per Councilor Rohde's inquiry. Councilor Hoffman suggested waiting to see what
the consultant said.
• Mr. Hertzberg recessed the meeting for a five-minute break.
• Mr. Hertzberg reconvened the meeting.
6. REMAINING ISSUES
A. Unsung Heroes
Councilor Graham referenced her e-mail asking the Council to recommend names for the
Selection Task Force, which the Mayor would appoint. She said that the Task Force would meet
on October 15 and October 22 to review the application forms. She reviewed the advertising for
the program and distribution of the nomination forms around the community with an application
deadline date of October 14. She indicated that the Task Force would present its
recommendations to the Council in November and the Council would present the awards at the
December 4 meeting to the three to five people chosen as `Unsung Heroes.'
B. Arts Awards
Mr. Schmitz reported that he talked with the Mayor and the Arts Commission co-chairs about
holding a fall event to recognize people who have contributed to the evolution, development or
financial expense of the arts. He said that the Arts Commission was so overwhelmed by the
Festival of the Arts and Arts Downtown that they preferred to wait until next year and to hold it
at some other time than the fall.
C. Sister City
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Budget Committee defunded the sister city program. She
mentioned that Yoshikawa was still contacting her and continuing the relationship. She
discussed her feeling that it was rude and disrespectful for Lake Oswego to tell Yoshikawa to go
away and not bother them any more, and she was not willing to do that. She pled for some
sensitivity and support of this cultural exchange relationship that the City has fostered.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that, barring a creative way to respectfully discontinue the
relationship, she needed suggestions on how to continue the relationship on a limited basis and
how to provide Yoshikawa visitors with some hospitality.
Councilor Turchi recommended getting advice on how to end this relationship in a way that
saved face for both sides. He referenced his experience in teaching global studies and attending
workshops on how to teach the differences between the two cultures in stating that the
differences were complicated enough that they needed advice.
Mr. Jordan indicated to Councilor Schoen that the program was funded at $4,500 in the past.
Councilor Schoen spoke in favor of continuing the program with funding at a lower level of
$3,000 a year. He concurred with Councilor Turchi that if Lake Oswego refused gifts from
Yoshikawa, Yoshikawa lost face and Lake Oswego looked bad. He held that the relationship did
have value, even if it was not a trading relationship.
Councilor McPeak recalled that the Budget Committee discussed this issue and made a decision
on it. She conceded that the Council had the authority to change that decision. She mentioned
reading in the Metroscape magazine from the PSU Department of Urban Studies that the
Portland Sister City program used only private funding, and no government funding. She
characterized that as a superior way to continue the program.
Councilor McPeak held that they could find a way to end the relationship without hurt feelings.
She observed that the Council has been trying to back away from this decision ever since it was
made, which made it questionable as to whether the Council wanted to end the relationship. She
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 24 of 28
July 16, 2001
7 2;
indicated that she did not think that the relationship was worth the $4,500. She spoke to the
Council being wary that the demands made on the City by its sister city would only get bigger.
She pointed out that only a small part of Lake Oswego has supported this program, which told
her that it was not important to their city.
Councilor Rohde said that he had thought it had been a mistake to defund the program and that
the program had never been properly structured in the first place. He recalled that it was an
extension of an arrangement that Lake Oswego had with a Chilean city. He concurred with
Councilor Turchi that they should talk to people at Portland State in order to find out what it
would take to operate a minimal sister city relationship. He spoke of funding the program at
$5,000.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Councilor Turchi to meet with someone at Portland State to figure
out what the Council could do. She noted that, while the Councilors did not need to go to
Yoshikawa, she knew that the Yoshikawa people wanted to keep coming to Lake Oswego for
things like the Lake Run. She commented that it sounded like it would take a small amount of
money and effort on the Council's part.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Yoshikawa people wanted to send art to the Festival,
which was fine, but they also wanted Lake Oswego to send things to them; the City did not want
to do so because of the shipping costs. Ship indicated that what seemed best to her was to tell
them that Lake Oswego did not have the money budgeted to participate but the Council would
still welcome their visits.
Councilor Rohde suggested talking to the Beaverton and Portland Sister City offices, as they
might have good advice on how a small city like Lake Oswego could still have a fruitful
relationship.
D. Council Corner
Councilor Graham described this as a column in the Review, similar to the Hello LO articles
written by the Council, in which the Councilor writing the column could discuss current events
or future vision. She spoke to the Council discussing what to write about and sharing the duty.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Review was willing to publish a column every couple of
weeks. She pointed out that the problem for the Council was that it was one more thing to do.
She asked if the Council wanted to postpone doing this or drop it entirely. Councilor Graham
suggested revisiting the issue in January while continuing to write the OpEd pieces as needed.
E. Council Expenses
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council expenses budget was reduced this year from
$4,000 per person to $3,000. She mentioned that they already had reservations at a hotel in
Washington, D.C. She cautioned the Council that they would go through the money quickly if
they were not careful.
Councilor McPeak mentioned that Mr. Schmitz told her that the Council could not carry over a
balance from year to year. She explained that her idea was to allow each Councilor to
accumulate up to two years worth, which would provide them with greater flexibility in planning
a two-year budget. She spoke of another possibility of pooling the $21,000, so that what one
Councilor did not spend would be available to another Councilor.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that it was barely possible to do the
Washington, D.C. conference and the November League of Cities conference on $3,000.
Councilor Hoffman suggested rethinking the $3,000 limit.
Councilor Graham spoke in support of individual Councilor accounts as opposed to a pool.
She asked to see what she has spent so that she could decide what she could do with the
remainder.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 25 of 28
July 16, 2001
73
Councilor Rohde observed that one of the first things often cut from a budget was training and
development. He argued that doing so did not help the organization or make it better able to
cope with the changes necessary in government. He described the two benefits to attending
regional and state conferences: the things that the Councilors learned, and the value of Lake
Oswego's representation at the conferences.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that there was no structure for the cities of Clackamas County to
contribute towards the cost of his going to the National League of Cities conference early in
order to lobby as a member of the JPACT delegation on behalf of transportation for the region;
therefore, Lake Oswego bore the entire cost. He argued that the his being there has enabled him
to have a Lake Oswego influence as well, citing his discussions with congressional
representatives about the Willamette Shore Rail line and their hope to get it all federally funded.
Councilor Rohde held that the name of Lake Oswego appearing on the list of attending cities at
these different conferences added to the City's reputation as a player at the table at the state level.
Councilor McPeak asked for a fuller discussion of this issue in public. Mayor Hamillerstad
said that she would schedule another discussion.
Councilor Schoen stated his opposition to carrying anything over. He argued for looking at
each budget annually. He held that if they could justify increased travel expenses at the end of
the year, then they should increase the allocation in the next year's budget. He spoke to figuring
out what events the Council needed to attend and to establishing a bottom line.
Councilor Turchi suggested allocating a certain amount of money to each Councilor to attend
conferences, and allocating another amount of money for those conferences to which the City
needed to send a representative delegate. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she discussed this
idea with Mr. Schmitz earlier, and it might be a possibility.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Mr. Schmitz to provide the Council with an accounting of what it
spent last year.
F. Volunteerism
Councilor Rohde discussed the opportunities for volunteerism that he had identified. He
mentioned that a possible Eagle Scout project had been turning the informal pathway following
the right-of-way easement on a North Shore property that went to up to Middlecrest into a formal
pathway in conjunction with the construction of a house on that property. He suggested
mustering volunteers to clear out the blackberries and trees from the area along the railroad
tracks from Cabana Lane to Berwick Road in order to turn it into a walking area.
Councilor Rohde described removing the volunteer trees from an area at the intersection of
Summit Road and Iron Mountain Boulevard, and restoring it to the open area that it used to be
for use as a gravel parking lot for those walking the trails. He mentioned re-establishing the
wetlands on the land the City owned east of the Hunt Club and using it as an overflow drain and
settling area.
Councilor Rohde spoke to the City identifying places in the community that it could improve
through a one -day volunteer project, using numerous volunteers overseen by a staff person.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that several groups have contacted her wanting to do volunteer
projects, such as the Boy Scouts and the Rotary Club. She pointed out that by master planning
the parks, the City had ready-made volunteer projects that it could hand out to Eagle Scouts and
others interested in volunteering. She spoke to the City being more aggressive in soliciting
volunteers.
Councilor Turchi suggested offering projects to the high schools, as they both required Legacy
projects by their seniors. Councilor Hoffman suggested establishing a Volunteer Action Board
or a Volunteer Coordinator to coordinate the projects with the volunteers.
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes Page 26 of 28
July 16, 2001 74
Ms. Heisler indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the natural resources staff person working on
volunteer and community outreach concentrated on open space and trail projects; the position
was for five months only.
Councilor Hoffman suggested asking the Chamber Leadership class to develop an institutional
way to connect community projects with community volunteers. Mr. Hertzberg said that he
worked for two years as a volunteer coordinator. He concurred with Councilor Hoffman that
establishing the connection between the people and the projects was the critical element.
7. FINAL COMMENTS
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned her interest in hiking all the trails in Lake Oswego this summer.
She suggested establishing a hiking group on either Wednesday afternoons or Friday mornings.
Councilor Hoffman asked where they were with the long-range visioning process. He noted
that they discussed it for two hours, and that Mayor Hammerstad was uncomfortable with a
visioning project under the Oregon Visioning Plan because of the experience of Milwaukie. He
held that there had to be a way to move forward towards a vision.
Councilor Hoffman described the Oregon model of a four -step visioning process, as outlined by
the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association. He said that the organization had a
list of Oregon cities where the process was successful. He asked how did they get from where
they were today to the vision they discussed earlier.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that Councilor Hoffman's comments with respect to the
Council's direction disturbed her. She described what they did today as verifying where they
were. She concurred that they did not say that they wanted to do a visioning process. She held
that they did have a direction, citing their goals and their intentions for next year with respect to
neighborhood planning and the redevelopment district.
Mr. Hertzberg clarified that his intent in this session had been to get a sense of the Council's
visioning but not to go beyond that into a formal structure.
Councilor Rohde commented that he was not as concerned with the grand vision as Councilor
Hoffman was. He spoke to establishing small visions that people could get their hands around
and moving forward with those.
Councilor Turchi described Councilor Hoffman's concern as finding a process that helped Lake
Oswego come together as a community to share points of view. He commented that he was not
certain that the end product was that important, as whatever came out of a formal visioning
process tended to be generic and of limited helpfulness.
Councilor Hoffman pointed out that the items listed on the wall cost mo iiey, such as purchasing
more open space or building a community center/library. He indicated that those were the big
things that he would like to see done. He questioned how they fostered family friendly diverse
affordable neighborhoods, other than through the Infill Task Force. He observed that the
recreation center kept coming back up but he did not know how they would fund it.
Councilor Hoffman spoke to the Council discussing money and how much the community
could afford. He referenced the School District bond in questioning if there was room in the
15,000 households in Lake Oswego for another $10 to $20 million bond. He proposed, as an
example, that Lake Oswego have the best infrastructure in the Metro region. He asked how did
they reach that goal.
Mr. Hertzberg mentioned the agreement that public engagement was essential to obtaining what
they needed in the short run.
6. OTHER
7. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes
July 16, 2001
Page 27 of 28
75
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 3:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
TanfGJ�
e Nadiin
Deputy City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Mid -Year Review Minutes
July 16, 2001
Page 28 of 28
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
7.1
09/18/01
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE No. 2310. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 47 (SIGN CODE) OF THE CITY OF LAKE
OSWEGO CODE TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY AT SPECIFIED TIMES.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Ordinance No. 2310. An ordinance of the City Of Lake Oswego amending
LOC Chapter 47 (Sign Code) of the City of Lake Oswego Code to allow temporary Signs
in the public right-of-way at specified times.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Report
• Exhibit A - Proposed
Ordinance 2310 -relevant
language
• Exhibit B — formai
Ordinance No. 2310
w/Table 47-3
CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CITY MANAGER
NOTICED (Date):
[bite: September 7, 2001
Ordinance no.: '3 10
Resolution no.: N/A
Findings no.: N/A
Previous Council
consideration: September 4, 2001
01
CITY MANAGER
Signoff/date--7 ° 1 Signoff/nate Signoff/date 2 v�
M:\Ord\Rpt-cov.doc
City Attorney's Office
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
From: David D. Powell, City Attorney
04-10
Date: September 7, 2001
Council Report
Subject: Proposed Ordinance No. 2310
Temporary Portable Signs in the Public Right -of -Way
BACKGROUND
The Lake Oswego Code currently forbids temporary signs in the public right-of-way. Although
it may vary in individual circumstances, the right-of-way typically extends beyond the improved
roadway and usually includes the curb, parking strip and sidewalk. Realtors have asked the
Council to consider amending the Sign Code to allow temporary signs in the right-of-way under
criteria similar to those in a recently adopted City of Portland ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Ordinance No 2310 (relevant language attached as Exhibit "A," formal ordinance
attached as Exhibit `B") amends the Sign Code to allow temporary signs in the public right -of
way.
The proposed ordinance is similar to Portland's ordinance in the following particulars:
• Only "portable signs" (signs that are easily moved and not affixed to the ground or a
structure) are permitted. It is expected that most signs placed under this ordinance will be
"A -frame" types.
• Signs are allowed only on Tuesdays and on weekends.
• Signs can be no more than 4 square feet in area, no wider than 2.5 feet and no taller than
2 feet.
• Signs are not allowed in medians, traffic islands, on approaches to curb ramps, at corners
of intersections, or where they would obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone at
least 6 feet wide.
• Signs may not obstruct access from sidewalks to transit stops, disabled parking spaces or
building exits.
7c
Council Report
September 7, 2001
Ord. No. 2310 Right -of -Way Signs
Page 2
• Signs may not be anchored to trees, public property, the ground or the pavement.
• Signs may not be in parking spaces, pedestrian pathways or bicycle paths.
• Consent of the abutting property owner is not required for a sign to be placed in a parking
strip or other location in the public right-of-way.
The proposed Lake Oswego ordinance differs from Portland's ordinance in the following ways:
• The right-of-way signs would be allowed only in residential zones. This would avoid
cluttering commercial areas with right-of-way advertising.
• Signs would be prohibited on any sidewalk.
• Signs would be allowed only between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on Tuesdays (realtor open house
days), and between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The Portland
ordinance allows signs throughout the weekend from 6 p.m. Friday until 8 p.m. Sunday
(in addition to Tuesday between 6 a.m. and 1 p.m.).
• Signs must be placed at least two feet from the curb. Portland requires that they be
placed within 6 inches of the curb — anticipating sidewalk signs.
• The new provisions would have a "sunset clause," stating that they will be automatically
repealed after one year (October 4, 2002). The Council could continue the new
provisions beyond that date by adopting another ordinance.
With the exception of the limitation to residential zones and the sunset clause, the above changes
from the Portland ordinance are consistent with a proposal by local realtors.
The City cannot constitutionally regulate the content of signs. Therefore the messages on
temporary right-of-way signs allowed by the proposed ordinance could not be limited to real
estate sales. Signs containing any kind of message - commercial, political, religious, personal,
etc. - would be allowed in the right of way as long as the signs meet the time, dimension and
location requirements of the ordinance.
CONCLUSION
If the Council concludes that the terms of Ordinance No. 2310 are appropriate as drafted, the
ordinance may be adopted at the September 18, 2001 meeting. Because of noticing
requirements, any changes to the proposed ordinance will require that final adoption be
continued to a later meeting.
so
47.08.300 Temporary Signs Exempt From Permit and Fee
B. Allowed Signage
3. In any residential zone portable signs, as defined in LOC 47.03.015, shall
be allowed within the public right-of-way on Tuesdays between the hours of nine (9) a.m.
and three (3) p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of ten (10) a.m. and six (6) p.m., and
on Sundays between the hours of ten (10) a.m. and six (6) p.m., provided that they meet
all of the following standards:
a. The sign is not placed on any sidewalk.
b. The sign is entirely outside the roadway and any shoulder;
C. The sign is not placed in a median, traffic island, or other area
within the roadway;
d. The sign is no larger than 4 square feet in area, counting one side
of the sign, and the sign face is no wider than 2.5 feet;
C. The sign, including the support structure, is no taller than 24
inches;
f. The sign is entirely outside of the area of a right-of-way corner that
is between the curb and the lines created by extending the property tines to the curb face.
See Table 47-3.
g. The sign is entirely outside the area of a right-of-way corner that is
between the lines created by extending the edges of any curb ramp to the property line,
h. The sign is placed at least two feet from the curb. Where no curb
exists, the sign must be placed outside the roadway at least five feet from the edge of the
roadway.
i. The sign does not obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone of
at least six feet in width;
j. The sign does pot obstruct pedestrian and wheelchair access from
the sidewalk to any of the following:
(1) transit stop areas;
EXHIBIT
D
(2) designated disabled parking spaces;or
(3) building exits including fire escapes.
k. The sign is not attached or anchored in any way to trees or to
public property including without limitation utility or light poles, parking meters, the
ground or the pavement;
1. The sign is not placed in parking spaces, pedestrian pathways, or
bicycle paths.
4. Subsection (13)(3) of this section is repealed on October 4, 2002.
ORDINANCE No. 2310
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 47
(SIGN CODE) OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CODE TO ALLOW TEMPORARY
SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT SPECIFIED TIMES
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeaut and adding
the new text shown in and underline.
Section 1. Section 47.03.015 is hereby amended to read as follows
47.03.015 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter certain terms and words are defined as follows: the words
"used for" include "designed for" and vice -versa; words used in the present tense include the
future, the singular tense include the plural and vice -versa; the word "shall" is always mandatory;
the word "may" is discretionary; the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as
otherwise provided. The definitions in LOC 48.02.015, and 49.16.015 apply to this chapter to
the extent that they do not conflict. The following terms shall mean:
Abandoned Sign. A sign associated with the use of a property which has ceased for a period
of at least six months.
Accessory Signs. Signage which is an integral part of outdoor accessory or display structures
or uses allowed by City code.
Alter. Any change to a sign excluding change of copy or maintenance - when there is no
change of use, or occupancy or ownership.
Architectural Detail. Elements of building design commonly used in Lake Oswego building
styles, including the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic Styles. (See photos
and descriptions in Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) Chapter 23, Appendix Q.
Awnin . A shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building and composed of
nonrigid materials except for supporting framework.
Backlighting backlighted", and "backlit". Includes cabinet signs, "Channelhume" (plastic
lighted letters), neon lighted letters, and individual letters on awnings and canopies.
Balloon Signs. A sign consisting of a membrane that relies on internal gaseous pressure or a
semirigid framework for maintaining its form.
Banners. Nonrigid material secured or mounted so as to allow movement caused by the
wind.
Blade Sian. A sign hung from a•canopy or awning perpendicular to the direction of
pedestrian movement.
Canopy. A nonmovable roof -like structure attached to a building.
Change of Copy. The change of logo and/or message upon the face or faces of a legal sign.
Commercial Zones. Commercial Zones shall mean the CR&D, EC, GC, HC, MC, NC,
OC/R-2.5, OC, OC/NC and R -2.5/W zones as described and established in the Lake Oswego
Zoning Code.
Complex Sign. A sign which is located at a street intersection or principle access to a mu1ii
building complex.
EXHIBITS
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 1 of 7
Cornice. The horizontal element in the elevation of a building demarcating the difference
between the pedestrian oriented level on street (characterized by entrances, shops, service space,
loading areas and lobbies) and office/residential use on levels above.
Erect. To build, construct, attach, place, suspend, or affix, including the painting of a wall
sign.
Facing or Surface. The surface of a sign upon, against, or through which the message is
displayed or illustrated.
Free Standina Sign. Any ground mounted, pole or monument sign supported by one or more
uprights or braces placed upon the ground, and not attached to any building.
Frontage Business. A business that has building wall exposure to a street or area open to
public travel. Frontage may include streets, alleys, driveways, easements, or parking aisles.
Indirectly Lighted Sign. A sign with a source of illumination which is intended to light the
sign, but which is not attached to the sign, its trim or support. Interior or exterior lighting which
incidentally illuminates the sign is not considered indirect lighting.
Industrial Zones. Industrial Zones shall mean the I and IP zones as described and established
by the Lake Oswego Zoning Code.
Maintenance. The replacing or repairing of a part or portion of a sign made unusable by
ordinary wear, or damaged beyond the control of the owner or the replacing of existing copy
without changing the composition or color of the copy.
Monument Sign. A sign which is affixed to a base which is no more than 30 inches above
the nearest ground surface.
Non -conforming Sign. Non -conforming signs are those signs which were lawfully installed
which do not comply with the requirements of this sign code.
Overhanging Sign. A sign which is attached perpendicular to a building wall and hangs out
over the public right-of-way or any private area subject to pedestrian travel.
Pennants. Strings of small flags.
Permanent Sign. Any legally placed sign which is intended to be and is so constructed as to
be of a lasting and enduring condition, remaining unchanged in character, condition (beyond
normal wear) and position, and in a permanent manner affixed to the ground, wall or building.
Pole Sign. A free standing sign erected on one or more supports which are more than 30
inches above the adjacent ground surface.
Portable Sign. A temporary sign 'which is capable of being moved easily and is not
per-mafiefWy affixed to the ground or a structure.
Public Sign. A sign erected and maintained by a public agency within the right-of-way of a
street or alley.
Residential Zones. Residential Zones shall mean the R-0, R-2, R-2.5, R-3, R-5, R-6, R-7.5,
R-10, R-15, DD and WR zones as described and established by the Lake Oswego Zoning Code.
Roof Line. The ridge on a gable or peaked roof, the parapet or fascia of a flat roof. A
mansard roof is considered as a gable roof for the purpose of this definition.
Roof Sign. Any sign erected upon or over the roof of any building with the principal sign
support on the roof structure.
Sign. A device, structure, or fixture which incorporates graphics, symbols, or written copy
visible to the public, including those devices, structures or fixtures which are behind windows or
building openings, which are intended to communicate information. Graphics, art work and
seasonal decorations which do not relate to the use of a site or structure are not considered signs.
Sian Band. A continuous painted, attached or structurally internal linear area for the
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 2 of 7 84
placement of signs extending along one or more sides of a structure located between the
windows and the parapet on a one story building with a flat roof and at or below the fascia on a
one story building with a pitched roof. On a multistory building it shall be located above the
windows and below the second story line.
Sign Height. The vertical distance from the lowest point of the adjacent grade below the sign
to the highest part of the sign.
Temporary Sign. Any sign, banner, pennant, valance or advertising display constructed of
cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or other like materials, with or without frames,
and any other type sign not permanently attached to the ground, or a structure, intended to be
displayed for a short period of time only.
Wall Sian. A sign attached to, erected against or painted on a wall of a structure, with the
exposed face of the sign projecting twelve (12) inches or less, with the exception of awnings and
canopies which may project more than twelve (12) inches. Sign bands are not wall signs.
Window signs that are permanently attached to the outside of a window are wall signs.
Wind Sign. Signage which is an integral part of a device intended to more or operate by the
action of the wind such as a wind sock or pin wheel.
(Ord. No. 1921, Sec. 3; 07-02-85. Ord. No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Section 2. Section 47.04.115 is hereby amended to read as follows
47.04.115 Prohibited Signs.
1. No sign, unless exempt or allowed pursuant to this chapter shall be permitted except as
may be permitted pursuant to LOC 47.12.500 (Variances).
2. No sign or sign structure shall be allowed that is constructed in such a manner or at such
a location that it will obstruct access to any fire escape or other means of ingress or egress from a
building or any exit corridor, exit hallway or exit doorway. No sign or supporting structure shall
cover, wholly or partially, any window or doorway in any manner that it will substantially limit
access to the building in case of fire.
3. In a commercial or industrial zone no sign shall be placed inside or outside a structure so
as to obscure more than 25 percent of any individual window surface. In a residential zone no
sign shall be placed so as to obscure more than 10 percent of any individual window surface.
Glass doors shall be considered an individual window surface.
4. No permanent sign, other than a public sign, may be placed within or over any portion of
the public right-of-way, except those signs which are consistent with the provisions of this
chapter and which are legally installed in accordance with LOC Chapter 45 (Buildings).
5. No sign shall be allowed within 2 feet of any area subject to vehicular travel.
6. JMt as provided in LOC 47.08.300(B)(3Z, Nfib temporary sign, other lhanexeept fe
banner signs for which a permit has been issued under LOC 47.08.305 and those necessary for
temporary traffic control that comply with LOC 47.08.300(A)(2)(b) shall be placed within or
over any portion of the public right-of-way of a major collector or arterial street.
7. No sign shall be located in a manner which could impede travel on any pedestrian or
vehicular travel surface.
8. No temporary signs, bench signs, banners, pennants, wind signs, balloon signs, flags or
any other temporary sign structure shall be allowed as except specifically authorized by this
Chapter.
9. No sign shall be equipped or displayed with moving, flashing or intermittent illumination
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 3 of 7
85
except athletic scoreboards.
10. No sign shall have or consist of any moving, rotating, or otherwise animated part.
11. No signs on buildings shall be placed on the roof or extend above the roof line or parapet
of the structure.
12. No sign shall be attached to a tree or vegetation.
13. No non-public sign which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles an official
traffic sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic on the street, or which
hides from view any official traffic sign or signal shall be permitted.
14. No public address system or sound devices shall be used in conjunction with any sign or
advertising device.
15. No signs that are internally illuminated shall be permitted in any residential zone.
16. No sign that obstructs free and clear vision of the traveling public at the intersection of
any street or driveway shall be permitted.
(Ord. No. 1921, Sec. 15; 07-02-85. Ord. No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Section 3. Section 47.08.300 is herebv amended to read as follows
47.08.300 Temporary Signs Exempt From Permit and Fee.
The following signs shall comply with all provisions and regulations of this chapter;
however, no fee, permit or application is required. Temporary signs are prohibited signs except
as provided by this section.
A. Generally.
1. Illumination: No temporary sign shall be internally or externally illuminated.
2. Location:
a. Except as provided by this section,Xo temporary sign shall extend into or over
the public right-of-way of any street.
b. Signs allowed in the right-of-way for temporary traffic control shall provide a
minimum of 5 feet of clear passage for pedestrians on the sidewalk where a sidewalk exists and
shall come no closer than 2 feet from areas subject to vehicular travel.
c. No temporary sign shall extend into the vision clearance area.
3. Maintenance: Temporary signs shall be kept neat, clean and in good repair. Signs
which are faded, torn, damaged or otherwise unsightly or in a state of disrepair shall be
immediately repaired or removed.
4. Placement: Except as provided by this section, temporary signs shall not be attached
to trees, shrubbery, utility poles, or traffic control signs or devices. They shall not obstruct or
obscure primary signs on adjacent premises.
5. Sign Collection and Retrieval:
a. The City may collect temporary signs placed in the public right of way without a
permit.
b. Each sign collected will be stored for a minimum of 30 days.
c. Notice will be mailed within 3 business days of the date of collection to the owner
of each sign if the ownership is reasonably discernible from the sign or as previously filed by the
owner of the sign with the City Maintenance Department.
d. The owner of a sign may retrieve a sign collected by the City within 30 days of
the collection date. The owner must present proof of ownership of the sign and pay a sign
retrieval fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council.
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 4 of 7 86
e. The owner of a sign may request a hearing before a Hearing Examiner to contest
the sign removal. The City Manager shall designate the Hearings Examiner. To request a
hearing, the owner of a sign must file an application for a hearing and pay a hearing fee in an
amount established by resolution of the City Council within 15 days of the date of mailing of the
notice as provided in subsection (c) above. The hearing fee and the sign retrieval fee are
refunded if the Hearing Examiner finds that the sign was removed improperly. At the hearing,
testimony and evidence begins with the City, followed by the owner, and concludes with rebuttal
by the City. After the evidence has been provided, the Hearing Examiner will close testimony
and issue a written decision that states the facts of the case and the conclusions of the decision.
f. Final Decision. The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be the final decision
of the City.
B. Allowed Signage.
1. In any residential zone temporary signage shall be allowed for each and every lot.
This signage shall not be restricted by content, but is usually and customarily used to advertise
real estate sales, political or ideological positions, garage sales, home construction or
remodeling, etc. Signage shall be allowed for each lot as follows:
a. Temporary signs not exceeding six square feet, provided the signs are erected not
more than 90 days prior to an election and removed within five days following the election.
b. One temporary sign not exceeding six square feet provided the sign is removed
within fifteen days from the sale, lease or rental of the property or within seven days of
completion of any construction or remodeling. An additional sign of the same size may be
erected if the property borders a second street and the signs are not visible simultaneously. On
tracts of land of more than 2 acres in residential zones the sign area may be increased to 32
square feet. In no case shall the sign or signs be erected for more than twelve (12) months.
c. One temporary sign not exceeding four square feet in area which is erected for a
maximum of eight days in any calendar month and is removed by sunset on any day it is erected.
d. Temporary signs erected within a building which do not obstruct more than 10
percent of any individual window surface.
2. In any commercial or industrial zone temporary signage shall be allowed for each and
every lot. This signage shall not be restricted by content, but is usually and customarily used to
advertise real estate signs, political or ideological positions, construction or remodeling, etc. The
signage shall be allowed for each lot as follows:
a. Temporary signs not exceeding six square feet, provided the signs are erected not
more than 90 days prior to an election and removed within five days following the election.
b. Temporary sign not exceeding 32 square feet provided said signs are removed
within fifteen days from the sale, lease or rental of the property or within seven days of
completion of any construction or remodeling. An additional sign of the same size may be
erected if the property borders a second street and the signs are not visible simultaneously.
c. Temporary non -illuminated signs not exceeding 16 square feet for charitable fund-
raising events placed by nonprofit and charitable organizations. Such signs shall not be placed
more than seven days prior to the event and must be removed within two days following the
event. No more than three such events shall be advertised in this manner per lot per year.
d. Temporary signs not exceeding 16 square feet in area erected in association with
the temporary uses allowed by LOC 48.20.510, including Christmas tree sales, pushcart vendors,
Saturday market and sidewalk sales. These provisions shall also apply to fireworks sales
authorized by LOC Chapter 15 (Fire Protection). The signage shall be allowed for the same
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 5 of 7 87
duration as the temporary use.
e. Temporary signs erected within a building which do not obstruct more than 25
percent of any individual window surface.
3. In any residential zone portable suns, as defined in LOC 47.03.015, shall be allowed
within the public right-of-way on Tuesdays between the hours of nine (9) a.m, and three (3) p.m.,
on Saturdays between the hours of ten (10) a.m. and six (6) p.m., and on Sundays between the
hours of ten (10) a.m. and six (6) p.m. provided that they meet all of the following; standards:
a. The sign is not placed on any sidewalk;
b. The sign is entirely outside the roadway and any shoulder;
C. The sign is not placed in a median, traffic island or other area within the roadway;
d. The sign is no larger than 4 square feet in area counting one side of the sign and the
sign face is no wider than 2.5 feet;
e. The sign, including the support structure is no taller than 24 inches,
f. The sign is entirely outside of the area of a right-of-way corner that is between the'
curb and the lines created by extending the property lines to the curb face. See TABLE 47-3
g. The sign is entirely outside the area of a right-of-way corner that is between the lines
created by extending the edges of any curb ramp to the property line;
h. The sign is placed at least two feet from the curb. Where no curb exists the Sign must
be placed outside the roadway at least five feet from the edge of the roadway_
i. The sign does not obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone of at least six feet in
width:
j. The sign does not obstruct pedestrian and wheelchair access from the sidewalk to any
of the following:
(1) transit stop areas;
(2) designated disabled parking spaces; or
(3) building exits including fire escapes.
k. The sign is not attached or anchored in any way to trees or to public propeliy
including without limitation utility or light poles, parking meters the ground or the pavement-,
1. The sign is not placed in parking spaces, pedestrian pathways, or bicycle paths.
4. Subsection (B)(3) of this section is repealed on October 4, 2002.
(Ord. No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid,
remaining portions of this ordinance.
ordinance are severable. If any portion of this
ich decision shall not affect the validity of the
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on
day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 6 of 7
, 2001.
LIM
ABSTAIN:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
M :\Ord\2310-Sign-ROW.doc
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 7 of 7
� �l
�mr1 7 777-
xr.
t;i
90
TABLE 47-3
(LOC 47.08.300)
---� -- -. Property Line
t Portable Signs
not allowed in
' this area
Curb Line
I
Street
91
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September lb, 2001
7.2
09/18/01
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE No. 2311. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE
TELEVISION SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENT GRANTED TO TCI
CABLEVISON OF TUALATIN VALLEY BY EXTENDING THE DEADLINE
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SYSTEM UPGRADE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Ordinance No. 2311, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego
approving an amendment to the non-exclusive Cable Television Services Franchise
Agreement granted to TCI Cablevison of Tualatin Valley by extending the deadline for
construction of the required system upgrade.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $ .
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
�44��
CITY ATTORNEY
Signoff/date "G " v 1
M: \ Ord \ Rpt-cov.doc
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A — MACC —
AT&T Upgrade Extension
Agreement
ASST. CITY MANAGER
Signoff/date
NOTICED (Date):
Date: September 7, 2001
Ordinance no.:
2311
Resolution no.:
N/A
Findings no.:
N/A
Previous Council
consideration: September 4, 2001
CITY M AGER
Signoff/date / -2, '/4pt 0/
9:$
ORDINANCE NO. 2311
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT GRANTED TO TCI CABLEVISON OF TUALATIN
VALLEY BY EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
REQUIRED SYSTEM UPGRADE
WHEREAS, in 1980 the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (hereinafter
"MACC") was formed by Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter "IGA") to enable its
member jurisdictions to work cooperatively and jointly on communications issues, in particular
the joint franchising of cable services and the common administration and regulation of such
franchise agreements, and the City of Lake Oswego is a member of MACC; and
WHEREAS, the IGA authorizes MACC and its jurisdictions to grant one or more nonexclusive
franchise agreements for the construction, operation and maintenance of a cable service system
within the combined boundaries of the member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the IGA requires that each member jurisdiction to be served by the proposed
grantee must formally approve any joint cable service franchise agreement and any amendment
thereof; and
WHEREAS, TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley, Inc., is the grantee under a Cable Television
Services Agreement approved by MACC and its member jurisdictions, dated February 1, 1999,
hereinafter "Franchise"; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was transferred with the consent of MACC and its member
jurisdictions to TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley, Inc. whose parent company is AT&T
Corporation (hereinafter "AT&T'), which is the current operator; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the Franchise by Ordinance No. 2178; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise requires an upgrade to the residential Cable System and the Public
Communications Network and provides deadlines for completion of those upgrades on or before
January 31, 2002; and
WHEREAS, AT&T has notified MACC and its member jurisdictions that it will be unable to
complete the required system upgrades by the deadline established in the Franchise due to
financial constraints; and
WHEREAS, the MACC Board, by Resolution 2001- 12 adopted on the 22"d day of August,
2001, recommended that affected member jurisdictions grant an extension of
Ordinance No. 2311
Page 1 of 3
5;;
the deadline for completion of the residential Cable System upgrade, with conditions, and
contingent on approval by all MACC member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that approval of the recommended extension is in the best
interest of the City and its citizens, provided that the conditions required in the negotiated
"Upgrade Extension Agreement", attached hereto as Exhibit A, are met;
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Agreement Approved. The Upgrade Extension Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved, subject to all the terms and
conditions contained therein.
Section 2. Conditions. The Upgrade Extension Agreement shall not take effect until such time as
each of the following have occurred:
a. All conditions precedent recited in the Agreement have been met; and
b. AT&T has paid to MACC the $50,000 to cover its costs, as required by Section
IV.A of the Agreement; and
C. AT&T has provided the letter of credit and performance bond required by Sections
VI.A and VI.B of the Agreement; and,
d. AT&T has caused its duly authorized representative to execute the Agreement as
written.
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on the 18`h day of September, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
City Recorder
Ordinance No. 2311
Page 2 of 3
96
APP
OVEDAST RM:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
M A0rd2311-ATT-Ex tens i on. doc
Ordinance No. 2311
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A.
MACC - AT&T
UPGRADE EXTENSION AGREEMENT
Recitals
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Area
Communications Commission (hereinafter "MACC") and TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley,
Inc., whose parent company is TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc.;
WHEREAS, MACC member jurisdictions and TCI Cablevision entered into a Cable
Television Services Agreement effective November 1, 1999 (hereinafter "Franchise"); and
WHEREAS, the Franchise was transferred with the consent of MACC and its member
jurisdictions to AT&T, Inc. (hereinafter "AT&T"), which is the current operator; and
WHEREAS, the Franchise requires an upgrade to the residential Cable System and the
Public Communications Network and provides deadlines for completions of those upgrades
on or before January 31. 2002; and
WHEREAS. AT&T has notified MACC and its member jurisdictions that it will be unable to
complete the required system upgrades by the deadline established in the Franchise due to
financial constraints; and
WHEREAS, MACC is willing to grant an extension of the deadline for completion of the
residential Cable System upgrade without otherwise limiting its rights and remedies under
the Franchise, provided certain assurances and considerations are obtained from AT&T in
the public interest and contingent on approval by its member jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the following conditions precedent have been met;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as set forth below.
Conditions Precedent
In all cases where requirements of this Agreement predate the date when this Agreement is
approved by the parties, it shall be a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this
Agreement that such requirements have been timely met.
All MACC member jurisdictions must approve this Agreement
I. SYSTEM UPGRADE
A. This Agreement provides for an extension of the deadline for construction of the
upgrade of the residential Cable System as required in Section 11.1A.2 of the
Franchise (on or before January 31, 2002) to July 31, 2002. AT&T shall have
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
completed its obligations for the upgrade of the residential Cable System if MACC
has certified completion of the following through audits as provided in this
Agreement:
1) The upgraded Cable System is constructed, and the physical plant is in
substantial compliance with the Franchise for a minimum of 22,000 passings to be
constructed between April 1, 2001, and February 1, 2002.
2) The upgraded Cable System is constructed, defined as completion of building and
capable of carrying the signals it is designed to carry, and the physical plant is in
substantial compliance with the Franchise and this Agreement, by July 31, 2002; and
3) The upgraded Cable System is proofed and is in substantial compliance with all
applicable FCC and other pertinent standards contained in the Franchise and this
Agreement by August 31, 2002; and
4) Upgraded video cable services are activated and available to subscribers, and in
compliance with all pertinent standards contained in the Franchise by September 30,
2002.
B. This Agreement does not extend the deadline for upgrade of the Public
Communications Network (PCN). All original PCN sites, and those identified in
Attachment A., shall be upgraded and migrated to the new PCN as defined in this
Agreement by February 1, 2002. This does not affect the PCN capacity
requirements set forth in Section 11.2 B. of the Franchise. AT&T shall have
completed its obligations for upgrade of the PCN per Section 11.2 of the Franchise if
each of the following occurs by the following deadlines subject to MACC's
certification and approval following audits as described in this Agreement:
1) All of the network has been upgraded to fiber for the new PCN; and
2) All user sites with service contracts are connected and migrated to the new PCN
per Section 11.2 A. 3) of the Franchise unless AT&T is unable to migrate the user to
the upgraded PCN due to the actions of the PCN user.
II. UPGRADE SCHEDULE FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
A. Segment 1: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with a current report
showing where construction has been completed for the upgrade of residential
passings.
B. Segment 2: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with an advance
build schedule for residential passings for this construction period. Between April 1,
2001 and February 1, 2002, AT&T must complete construction of a minimum of
22,000 passings.
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
C. 1) Segment 3: By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with a preliminary
plan, shown on a monthly basis, for the passings to be constructed during the
upgrade extension period (February 1, 2002 through July 31, 2002),
2) By November 1, 2001, AT&T must provide MACC with the final build schedule,
shown on a monthly basis, for the time period of the upgrade extension.
3) By January 15, 2002, AT&T shall provide written documentation of its readiness to
complete Segment 3 construction. Such documentation shall demonstrate, at a
minimum, that at least the following are substantially completed by this date: a) the
fiber backbone is in place; b) any needed power supplies have been permitted and
placed (excepting electronics); and c) underground and over -lash construction
permits are in place.
This report shall also show the extent of replacement of the existing coaxial system
during upgrade activities for Segments 1 and 2.
Ill. REPORTING
AT&T shall provide MACC with progress report each month throughout the upgrade
extension period for the following:
A. Residential Cable System
1) Monthly reports: AT&T shall provide MACC with monthly build schedule progress
reports for both the original upgrade period (Segment 2) and the upgrade extension
period (Segment 3) by the 1 Y' day of each month, beginning in the first month after
execution of this Agreement. These reports shall include a written narrative report
detailing the nodes constructed during the prior month.
2) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice that the Segment 2 requirements for
the upgraded residential Cable System have been constructed on or before
February 1, 2002. This notice must state that upgrade construction is completed and
the Cable System is in substantial compliance with the Franchise and this
Agreement for a minimum of 22,000 residential passings.
3) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice of its completion of construction of
Segment 3 -- upgrade of the remainder of the residential Cable System -- on or
before August 1, 2002. This notice must state that upgrade construction is
completed and the Cable System is in substantial compliance with the Franchise and
this Agreement for all residential passings in the Franchise Area.
A -00110W
1) By August 10, 2001, AT&T shall provide MACC with the final build schedule which
shows, on a monthly basis. upgrade of the PCN.
3 1 „I
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
2) AT&T shall provide MACC with monthly build schedule progress reports by the
10th day of each month, beginning in the first month after execution of this
Agreement. These reports shall include a written narrative describing the upgrade
construction on the PCN and a list of sites that have been connected and migrated,
as defined in this Agreement, to the upgraded PCN fiber during the prior month. The
first report provided shall also document PCN upgrade construction from August 1,
2001 forward to the date of this report.
3) AT&T shall provide MACC with written notice of its completion of construction of
the upgrade of the PCN on or before February 1, 2002. This notice must state that
the PCN fiber upgrade is complete, that all user sites are connected and migrated,
as defined in this Agreement, to the new PCN, and that all users have signed a PCN
Acceptance Agreement.
C. Effect of completion notices
The completion notices from AT&T are administrative in nature. Failure by AT&T to
provide the required completion notices shall not result in any modification to the
construction requirements otherwise provided for herein.
IV. CONSIDERATION FOR EXTENSION
A. MACC Costs: AT&T shall provide MACC with $50,000 upon execution of this
Agreement. This amount is estimated to cover extraordinary costs for legal,
consulting, and other outside or out of pocket expenses related to the negotiation,
execution. and enforcement of AT&T's request for an extension of the upgrade
deadline. MACC shall provide AT&T with an itemized list of expenses after MACC
staff certifies that the upgrade is complete.
B. MACC Subscriber Notices
AT&T shall provide MACC with one complimentary bill stuffier in the first year of this
Agreement to allow MACC to notify subscribers of its services and their rights as
cable subscribers. For the first year of the requirement, AT&T shall provide for
production, insertion, and incremental postage at no charge to MACC. In
subsequent years, AT&T shall provide MACC with the right to include bill staffers
and shall pay the costs for insertion and incremental postage; MACC shall be
responsible for production costs. The bill stuffier shall be included in subscribers' bills
during the first quarter of each calendar year (January 1 — March 31), beginning in
2002. AT&T shall be provided an opportunity to review and approve the content of
these bill stuffers. Bill stuffers must conform to AT&T's mailing requirements.
C. @Home Accounts: AT&T shall provide MACC with 30 complimentary @Home
service accounts (including modems, standard installations, and monthly service), or
other substantially equivalent service, over the life of the Franchise. MACC shall
give AT&T thirty (30) days advance notice for such installations and AT&T shall be
required to provide them only in areas where these services are available. MACC
shall designate which agency sites shall receive these modems, installation and
service. AT&T shall be allowed to approve the sites selected for these services to
4
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
assure that none could be used for commercial users. Selected sites will be
provided with @Home service as it is available as of the effective date of this
Agreement, or with substantially equivalent service as it is available over the life of
the Franchise. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit AT&T from requiring
selected sites to enter into standard @Home service agreements.
D. Residential Subscribers
1) Subscribers who have not been provided upgraded video services by February 1,
2002, shall receive a $0.30 credit on their February bill and on each subsequent bill
until such subscriber is able to receive the upgraded video services. MACC shall be
allowed to review and comment on the descriptions of such credits on subscriber
bills.
2) AT&T shall not impose any rate increases for Basic, Expanded Basic, or
Standard video cable services on a subscriber until that subscriber is upgraded, and
services are activated and available to that subscriber. This provision applies from
the date of the execution of this Agreement until MACC has certified that the
upgrade is complete.
3) On February 1, 2002, AT&T shall provide all non -upgraded subscribers with
coupon(s) worth a minimum of $16.00 toward Pay -Per -View or other enhanced
services.
4) All credits shall be provided only to "basic service customers" -- defined as an
individual receiving a bill from AT&T for the provision of cable services to its
household. not including "bulk -billed" and commercial customers.
E. PEG
1) AT&T shall reimburse the Designated Access Provider for costs to publicize and
notify PEG users and subscribers of channel line-up changes, not to exceed $5,000.
2) AT&T shall cover all of the costs for printing one bill stuffer, for the Designated
Access Provider, including the costs of insertion and any incremental postage costs,
not to exceed $5,000. Bill stuffers must conform to AT&T's mailing requirements.
3) The deadline requirement for relocation of the headend of the Designated Access
Provider Section 9.3.D of the Franchise) is extended to January 31, 2002, and
AT&T shall subsidize this relocation amount up to $58,000 for one relocation. The
Designated Access Provider shall pay all additional costs of this relocation. MACC
shall notify AT&T by August 22, 2001, whether the Designated Access Provider has
indicated that they want this location to be built using analog or digital equipment.
F PCN
PCN rates for any agency shall remain at the "legacy level" until a minimum of 50% of
that agency's sites are connected and operating on the new PCN.
5
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
V. AUDITS
A. AT&T shall facilitate up to three (3) audits of construction, activation, and certification
requirements of the upgraded residential system by MACC or its designee, as
described herein. In addition, AT&T shall facilitate additional audits and interim
progress evaluations performed by MACC or its designee on both the residential
Cable System and the PCN regarding the commitments of this Agreement. These
evaluations shall be conducted between the date of execution of this Agreement and
the deadlines specified for construction completion. The parties agree that checklists
for the residential Cable System and PCN, Attachments B. and C., will be used as
part of the audit process.
B. AT&T shall make records available consistent with Section 7.1. of the Franchise, but
with no cure period for any violation.
C. MACC or its designee shall perform an audit within 14 calendar days following the
deadline for upgrade construction of 22,000 passings of the residential Cable
System and upgrade of the PCN unless unusual circumstances or a force majeure
occurrence prevents or delays the audit. Thereafter, MACC shall certify completion
of this segment of the upgrade within 14 days of receipt of any clarification, follow-
up, or other information needed from AT&T.
D. MACC or its designee shall perform an audit within 14 calendar days following the
deadline for upgrade of the PCN unless unusual circumstances or a force majeure
occurrence prevents or delays the audit. Thereafter, MACC shall certify completion
of the PCN upgrade within 14 days of receipt of any clarification, follow-up, or other
information needed from AT&T.
E. MACC or its designee shall perform an audit within 14 calendar days following the
deadline for upgrade construction of the remainder of the residential Cable System
unless unusual circumstances or a force majeure occurrence prevents or delays the
audit. Thereafter, MACC shall certify completion of this segment of the upgrade
within 14 days of receipt of any clarification, follow-up, or other information needed
from AT&T.
VI. REMEDIES AND PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
A. Concurrent with its written acceptance of this Agreement, AT&T shall provide
MACC with a $2,000.000 irrevocable Letter of Credit, in a form satisfactory to
MACC, to be available for payment of fines that may be imposed under this
Agreement and to otherwise secure AT&T's performance of its obligations under
this Agreement. Upon AT&T meeting all of the requirements of this Agreement,
MACC will release the Letter of Credit.
B. Concurrent with its written acceptance of this Agreement, AT&T shall provide
MACC with a performance bond, in a form satisfactory to MACC, in the amount
of $12,000,000 to assure its completion of the requirements of this Agreement.
N
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
AT&T may retain its existing bond as required by Section 5.5 A. of the Franchise
in partial satisfaction of this requirement. When MACC certifies that AT&T has
fully performed all of its obligations under this Agreement, this bond shall be
cancelled provided the $1,000,000 bond, as required by the Franchise, is in
place.
C. Residential Cable System
1) If AT&T fails to provide to MACC the required build schedule progress reports
on a monthly basis for the upgrade of the residential system (as required in III. A.
1), III. B. 1), III. B. 2) or the required documentation due under II C. by the due
dates for those reports and documents, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested
fine of $250 per day for every day each item is late to MACC and no cure period
is allowed.
2) If AT&T fails to meet the monthly cumulative build schedule requirements for
the residential Cable System, fines shall accrue at $10,000 per month until
cumulative construction requirements are met.
3) If AT&T fails to complete construction of the residential upgrade by July 31,
2002, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested fine of $100,000.
4) In addition, AT&T shall pay daily fines established in Section 15.2 of the
Franchise for each day thereafter until MACC certifies that the upgrade of the
residential Cable System is completed.
5) The effective date for imposition of any fines for delay in the total upgrade of
the residential Cable System shall not begin prior to 14 calendar days after July
31, 2002.
D. Public Communications Network
1) If AT&T fails to provide to MACC the required monthly build schedule
progress reports on the upgrade of the PCN, as required in III. B. 1), by the due
dates for those reports, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested fine of $250 per
day for every day each report is late to MACC and no cure period is allowed.
2) If any of the original PCN sites, or those identified on Attachment A., are not
upgraded and migrated within 30 days after the timeline date proposed in the
build schedule, AT&T shall pay an uncontested fine of $5,000 for each affected
site. These fines shall be delivered to MACC, payable to the specific agency.
Additional $5,000 fines shall be delivered to MACC, payable to these agencies,
every thirty (30) days thereafter that the specific site is not upgraded.
E. Combined Penalty — Segment 2 and PCN
1) Consistent with this Agreement, AT&T shall pay MACC an uncontested fine of
$50,000 if AT&T fails to complete any of the following: upgrade and migration of
7
1 u ii
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
all original PCN sites.. PCN site identified on Exhibit A, or Segment 2 of the
residential Cable System on or before January 31, 2002.
2) In addition, AT&T shall pay daily fines established in Section 15.2 of the
Franchise each day thereafter until all PCN sites are upgraded.
F. Combined Penalty — Segment 3 and PCN
If the upgrade construction, as required by the Franchise and this Agreement, is
not completed as certified by MACC by September 30, 2002, the term of the
Franchise shall be reduced by three (3) years per Section 19.11 of the Franchise
without prior notice to AT&T.
VII. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. The MACC Commission shall determine the use of all funds paid to MACC.
B. Terms of this Agreement are contingent on approval by all MACC jurisdictions.
C. Existing Franchise provisions remain in effect in addition to those specified in this
Agreement.
D. This Agreement shall be binding on AT&T's successors in interest and assigns.
It shall be a condition of any request for approval of a transfer of the Franchise or
Cable System or change of control of AT&T that the transferee or new controlling
entity specifically accept and agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement
in writing.
E. The remedies provided under this Agreement and under the Franchise are
cumulative. Pursuit of one remedy shall not preclude pursuit of any other
available remedy.
The remedies provided under this Agreement shall be subject to the process
otherwise required under Franchise Section 15 unless this Agreement provides
for an uncontested fine or waives a cure period. In the event of a failure by
AT&T to complete construction as required by this Agreement, MACC may, in its
discretion, draw on the performance bond or letter of credit to secure completion.
F. Payment of all fines due under this Agreement shall occur within thirty (30)
calendar days of the date notice or demand for payment by MACC is received by
AT&T. "Payment' shall mean receipt by MACC, at MACC's office, of guaranteed
funds in the full amount due.
G. Throughout the term of this Agreement, AT&T shall maintain and file with MACC
a designated legal or local address for the service of notices by mail. A copy of
all notices from MACC to AT&T shall be sent, postage prepaid, to such address
and such notices shall be effective upon the date of mailing. At the effective
date of this Agreement, these addresses are:
0
Dgrade Extension Agreement
c-27-01
(1) Senior Vice -President
AT&T Broadband
3075 NE Sandy Blvd
Portland, Oregon 97232
(2) Legal Department
22025 30th Avenue SE
Bothell, Washington 98021
All notices to be sent by AT&T to MACC under this Agreement shall be sent,
postage prepaid, and such notices shall be effective upon the date of mailing. At the
effective date of this Agreement, this address is:
Administrator
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission
1815 NW 169th Place, Suite 6020
Beaverton, OR 97006-4886
E
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
ATTACHMENT A
Future PCN Sites
Banks City Hall 100 S. Main Banks
Pacific University 2043 College Way Forest Grove
Gales Creek School (FDSD) 9125 NW Sergeant Gales Creek
10
v Ngrade Extension Agreement
3-27-01
ATTACHMENT B
MACC — AT&T Residential Cable System Upgrade Audit Checklist
At Headend, Master Hub, or Hub:
1. Are all subscriber video programming services specified in either the franchise or
AT&T's product and services literature available at the Headend?
2. Are the facilities and equipment at the Headend able to deliver high quality signals
that meet or exceed FCC technical quality standards?
a. Is satellite receive equipment available and functioning at the Headend to
facilitate required services?
b. Is off air receive equipment available and functioning to facilitate required
services?
c. Are modulators/demodulators available and functioning for transmission
of services up to 550 Mhz or above?
d. Is the fiber optic transmission system available and functioning in the
downstream direction to support subscriber video services?
e. Is the required Emergency Alert System available at the Headend?
i. Is it operating within FCC required parameters?
f. Is equipment to facilitate digitally compressed video services available and
functioning at the Headend?
g. Is addressable equipment available and functioning at the Headend to facilitate
required services?
3. Is the return system in place and operating such that it could support two-way high
speed Internet access?
a. Is fiber optic upstream transport equipment available and functioning to facilitate
the return system?
b. Is electronic equipment available and functioning to facilitate upstream
transmission?
11 O
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
4 Is standby power generating capacity capable of providing at least 12 hours of
emergency operation available at the Headend?
a. Is there a back-up generator?
i. Is it operational?
b. Is there a --48 VDC battery system?
i. Is it operational?
5 Is the Headend, Master Hub or Hub grounded in accordance with Code
requirements?
Distribution System:
For all distribution system areas checked, the following specifications shall be met or
exceeded for 95% of the test results:
1 Does the system use a fiber to the neighborhood node architecture?
a. Does each node size equal 1,500 customers or less?
2. Is the location active?
3. Do the system active electronics meet or exceed transport capabilities of 550 MHz?
4 Do the system passive devices meet or exceed transport capabilities of 550 MHz?
5 Does the location meet all required FCC performance parameters in the
downstream direction?
a. Carrier to noise meets or exceeds 43 dB
b. Carrier to coherent distortion meets or exceeds —51 dB
c. In channel frequency response is less than or equal to +/-2 dB
d. Frequency response across the passband (peak to valley) meets or is lower than
13 dB
e. Hum modulation is 3% or less
f Visual/aural signal level differential is between 10 dB and 17 dB
g. Adjacent channel visual signal level variation is 3 dB or less
12
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
h. All drop locations provide a minimum 3 dB signal level at the end of a 100 -foot
drop
6. Required spectrum is activated in the upstream direction
7. Stand-by powering is available and provides back-up power for two hours or more
8. System converters carry signals in accordance with manufacturers' specifications
with a channel capacity that meets or exceeds 550 Mhz
Physical Plant Characteristics:
For all physical plant checked, the following specifications shall be met or bettered for 95%
of the test results:
1. All equipment is grounded/bonded at pole locations in accordance with Code
requirements.
2. All equipment is grounded/bonded at pedestal locations in accordance with Code
requirements.
3. Aerial plant is in compliance with all applicable National Electric Safety Code ana
other pertinent Code requirements.
Note: All system problems found, including those that are evidenced 5% of the time or less
must be promptly corrected so that affected areas of the system will achieve full compliance
with required specifications.
13
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
ATTACHMENT C
MACC — AT&T PCN Audit Checklist
All specifications below are to be completed or met 100% of the time.
At the Headend, Master Hub, or Hubs:
1. Are all active PCN fibers for PCN sites with contracts for service terminated and
spliced at the hubs and Headend?
2. Is all required equipment available and configured at the Headend and Hub for each
service offered?
a. ATM/T-1
b. ATM/10 Megabit
c. ATM/100 Megabit
d. Gigabit Ethernet
e. Ethernet/10 Megabit
f. Ethernet/100 Megabit
g. EthernetfT-1
h. Video receive
i. Video receive/transmit
3. For each service contracted for, are required network management/monitoring and
control hardware and software in use and performing satisfactorily?
a. ATM/T-1
b. ATM/10 Megabit
c. ATM/100 Megabit
d. Gigabit Ethernet
e. Ethernet/10 Megabit
f. Ethernet/100 Megabit
g. Ethernet/T-1
h. Video receive
i. Video receive/transmit
14
1��
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-09
4. is all PCN equipment connected to the UPS or --48 VDC battery system?
5. Is all PCN equipment connected to the back-up generator?
6. Is PCN equipment in a controlled area?
7. Are procedures in place for necessary access by PCN user personnel?
8. Is all PCN equipment properly grounded/bonded at the Headend and Hub?
9. Is the fiber transport system at the Headend and Hub for the PCN operating in both
the upstream and downstream directions?
10. Are all disaster recovery procedures in place at the Headend and Hub for PCN
services?
11. Are all required PCN interconnections routed through the Headend operating?
12. Is the physical plant leaving/entering the Headend and Hub in compliance with all
pertinent NESC and other codes concerning clearances and other pertinent
specifications?
At the Node/Splice Location:
1. Is required initial PCN and excess capacity available at each location?
2. Is the physical plant in compliance with all pertinent code and other requirements at
each location?
Distribution Plant:
Does the PCN plant meet all required NESC and other specifications at the locations
checked?
15
Upgrade Extension Agreement
8-27-01
At User Sites with Contracts for Service:
1. Does the PCN drop meet all required physical plant specifications pursuant to the
NESC and other applicable codes?
2. Is the PCN terminated at the user site for contracted services?
3. Is AT&T -supplied transport equipment configured and operating at the user site?
4. Is all transport equipment powered and grounded/bonded at the user site?
5. Are required service levels being provided at each user location for the services the
site has contracted for:
a. ATM/T-1
b. ATM/10 Megabit
C. ATM/100 Megabit
d. Gigabit Ethernet
e. Ethernet/10 Megabit
f. Ethernet/100 Megabit
g. Ethernet/T-1
h. Video receive
i. Video receive/transmit
6. Can throughput be measured and documented to verify provision of required service
levels?
7 Are users being provided with required PCN performance data and associated
reports?
8. Has the PCN met required network availability parameters at each user location?
9. Are users receiving required service response and required trouble resolution reports
from AT&T?
16
1 L.}
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 8. 1. 1
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 09/18/01
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Joint Library Charge Statement
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS: �j NOTICED (Date):
• 12 September, 2001
Schmitz memorandum with
attachment
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
Z//-
CITYV4NAGER
signoff/date
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Doug Schmitz, City Manager
SUBJECT: Joint Library Charge Statement
DATE: 12 September, 2001
BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM
Both the City Council and School Board have indicated interest in the appointment of a
citizen task force to study the feasibility of a shared District/City public library facility to
be located at Lake Oswego High School.
The Committee would be comprised of 25 members: 12 to be appointed by each of the
legislative bodies and the 25'h member, the chair, to be jointly appointed by the Board
and Council.
Attached is a proposed charge statement outlining the responsibilities of the Task Force.
A copy has been provided to the Lake Oswego School District and is to be considered by
the Board the week of 17 September. A copy has also been provided to the Library
Advisory Board and is to be the subject of discussion at its meeting on 12 September.
The comments from each of these groups will be forwarded to the Council under separate
cover.
DJS.jm
Attachments
117
Library Task Force Charge Statement Dra Page 1
5 September 2001
Library Task Force Charge Statement
Introduction
The Lake Oswego School Board and the Lake Oswego City Council have
concurred on a proposal for a task force to study the feasibility of a joint District/
City public library facility at Lake Oswego High School.
Factors for Decision:
Based upon the following factors, the task force will recommend whether a joint
District/City library facility at Lake Oswego High School is feasible:
■ To recommend a governance structure
■ To recommend a managerial system for operation of a joint library facility
■ To develop a preliminary budget
■ To develop a proposal for the ongoing evaluation of a joint library
Responsibilities
The task force will work with District and City staff to address and develop the
above goals. The task force shall reach a general consensus on the various
proposals and shall forward its report to the School Board and City Council.
The task force shall consist of 25 members. The Lake Oswego School District
Board of Directors shall appoint 12 members who are not officers or employees
of the District. The City Council shall appoint 12 members who are citizens of
Lake Oswego and who are not employees of the City. In addition to the
aforementioned members, the School Board and City Council shall jointly
approve the selection of a chair.
Applications for the task force will be prepared and distributed by each entity for
the selection of its 12 appointees to the task force. Each body shall determine
selection of nominations from applications received independently.
Resources
The task force will have access to materials and resources developed by other
library facilities, and reports and recommendations through a broad-based
literature review. Also available will be the report by the Lake Oswego Library
Advisory Board, dated June 4, 2001 and other materials submitted by groups and
citizens.
Officers
119
Library Task Force Charge Statement Draft Page 2
5 September 2001
The chair will be selected jointly the School Board and the City Council. The vice
chair shall be selected by general consensus of the task force's membership. In
the absence of the chair, the vice chair shall lead the meetings. In the absence of
the chair and vice chair, an acting chair shall be selected by the members in
attendance to assume responsibility for that meeting.
Quorum and Decision -Making
A majority (13) of the members to the task force shall constitute a quorum for the
conduct of business. The task force may meet without a quorum, but no action
may be taken.
Decisions may be made by general expression of consensus, except for approval
of the final report for forwarding to the School Board and City Council. In cases
where there is no indication of consensus, the chair may call for a vote. The chair
shall be eligible to express preferences in the consensus process and also to vote
on all matters coming before the task force.
Record Keeping
Minutes shall be taken at all meetings. The City Manager shall appoint a City
employee to serve as secretary to the task force. Draft minutes shall be
distributed to the task force for consideration and approval at the next meeting.
Meeting Dates, Times and Subcommittees
The date, time and frequency of task force meetings shall be determined by the
membership. The chair of the task force shall appoint subcommittees when
he/she deems it appropriate.
Public Participation
On each agenda of the task force, time shall be allocated for public comment.
The chair, in addition to this noted public time, may allow further comment by
non -task force members at the chair's discretion during the course of a meeting.
MM,
The Superintendent of Schools and City Manager or their designees shall be
primary staff to the task force. Other staff members from both agencies may be
called upon or utilized from time to time for specific assignments to work for the
task force on specific assignments.
Term of the Task Force
120
Library Task Force Charge Statement Dra Page 3
5 September 2001
The term of the task force shall expire upon completion of its charge. However,
this shall be no later than 30 June 2002 unless specifically extended by vote of the
School Board and City Council.
Library Task Force Charge Statement - REVISED
Introduction
The Lake Oswego School Board and the Lake Oswego City Council have
concurred on a proposal for a task force to study the feasibility of a joint District/
City public library facility at Lake Oswego High School.
Factors for Decision
Based upon the following factors, the task force will recommend whether a joint
District/City library facility at Lake Oswego High School is feasible:
■ Legality. Is a joint District/City library legal under the Oregon Revised
Statutes?
■ Advantages/Disadvantages.
• What, if any, are the advantages and disadvantages of a joint facility to the
Lake Oswego School District and the City?
* What, if any, are the advantages of.a, joint facility to students and citizens?
* What, if any, are the disadvantages of a joint facility to students and
citizens?
■ Financing.
* How would a joint facility be financed?
* Would a joint facility impact the financing of the existing library?
* What, if any, City/Lake Oswego School District projects would not be
undertaken if funding is directed to a joint facility?
■ Services.
* What services currently not provided at the high school or the public
library might be made available at a joint facility?
* What, if any, services currently -provided at the Lake Oswego Public
Library might be relocated to a joint facilites
If the task force determines that a joint facility is feasible, then:
■ Governance/Management
■ To recommend a governance structure
* To recommend a managerial system for operation of a joint library facility
* To develop a preliminary budget
* To develop a proposal for the ongoing evaluation of a joint library
Library Task Force Charge Statement - REVISED Page 3
17 September 2001
shall be eligible to express preferences in the consensus process an(I also to vote
on all matters coming before the task force.
Record Keeping
Minutes shall be taken at all meetings. The City Manager shall appoint a City
employee to serve as secretary to the task force. Draft minutes shall be
distributed to the task force for consideration and approval at the next meeting.
Meeting Dates, Times and Subcommittees
The date, time and frequency of task force meetings shall be determined by the
membership. The chair of the task force shall appoint subcommittees when
he/she deems it appropriate.
Public Participation
On each agenda of the task force, time shall be allocated for public comment.
The chair, in addition to this noted public time, may allow further comment by
non -task force members at the chair's discretion during the course of a meeting.
Public Notice of upcoming meetings will be distributed to the press at least seven
days before the meeting,
Staff
The Superintendent of Schools and City Manager or their designees shall be
primary staff to the task force. Other staff members from both agencies may be
called upon or utilized from time to time for specific assignments to work for the
task force on specific assignments.
Term of the Task Force
The term of the task force shall expire upon completion of its charge. However,
this shall be no later than 30 June 2002 unless specifically extended by vote of the
School Board and City Council.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Clackamas County Coordinating Committee
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
8.1.2
09/18/01
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Clackamas County
Coordinating Committee by-laws and select a member to serve as the City's
representative on the committee.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE
ATTACHMENTS:
September 12, 2001
Staff Report from
Kincaid
PUBLISHED NOTICES
(Date):
Resolution no.:
Previous Council consideration:
CHIEF OF STA F CITY M AGER
Signoff/date
—/
Signoff/dat
P/Special Projects/Cover Summary — Clackamas County Coordination Committee
123
Cr
C'ORRLIION
T -HIS DOCUME"NT
-A -1
HAS BI "-r-.-4",N R.I-'-',P-A'.PI-IL",D
TO I I i I 1111Y
ASSU RF RH ,
Library Task Force Charge Statement - REVISED
Introduction
The Lake Oswego School Board and the Lake Oswego City Council have
concurred on a proposal for a task force to study the feasibility of a joint District/
City public library .facility at Lake Oswego High School.
Factors for Decision
Based upon the following factors, the task force will recommend whether a joint
District/City library facility at Lake Oswego High School is feasible:
■ Legality. Is a Joint District/City library legal under the Oregon Revised
Statutes?
■ Advantages/Disadvantages.
* What, if any, are the advantages and disadvantages of a joint facility to the
Lake Oswego School District and the City?
* What, if any, are the advantages of a joint facility to students and citizens?
* What, if any, are the disadvantages of a joint facility to students and
citizens?
■ Financing.
* How would a joint facility be financed?
* Would a joint facility impact the financing of the existing library?
* What, if any, City/Lake Oswego School District projects would not be
undertaken if funding is directed to a joint facility?
Services.
* What services currently not provided at the high school or the public
library might be made available at a joint facility?
* What, if any, services currently provided at the Lake Oswego Public
Library might be relocated to a joint facilites
If the task force determines that a joint facility is feasible, then
■ Governance/Management
* To recommend a governance structure
* To recommend a managerial system for operation of a joint library facility
* To develop a preliminary budget
* To develop a proposal for the ongoing evaluation of a joint library
Library Task Force Charge Statement - REVISED Page 2
17 September 2001
Responsibilities
The task force will work with District and City staff to address and develop the
above goals. The task force shall reach a general consensus on the various
proposals and shall forward its report to the School Board and City Council.
The task force shall consist of 25 members. The Lake Oswego School District
Board of Directors shall appoint 12 members who are not officers or employees
of the District. The City Council shall appoint 12 members who are citizens of
Lake Oswego and who are not employees of the City. In addition to the
aforementioned members, the School Board and City Council shall jointly
approve the selection of a chair. At least one vosition of the City's 12 seats shall
be held by a member of the City Library Advisor, Board.
Applications for the task force will be prepared and distributed by each entity for
the selection of its 12 appointees to the task force. Each body shall determine
selection of nominations from applications received independently.
Resources
The task force will have access to materials and resources developed by other
library facilities, and reports and recommendations through a broad-based
literature review. Also available will be the report by the Lake Oswego Library
Advisory Board, dated June 4, 2001, and other materials submitted by groups
and citizens.
Officers
The chair will be selected jointly by the School Board and the City Council. The
vice chair shall be selected by general consensus of the task force's membership.
In the absence of the chair, the vice chair shall lead the meetings. In the absence
of the chair and vice chair, an acting chair shall be selected by the members in
attendance to assume responsibility for that meeting.
Quorum and Decision -Making
A majority (13) of the members to the task force shall constitute a quorum for the
conduct of business. The task force may meet without a quorum, but no action
may be taken.
Decisions may be made by general expression of consensus, except for approval
of the final report for forwarding to the School Board and City Council. In cases
where there is no indication of consensus, the chair may call for a vote. The chair
Library Task Force Charge Statement - REMISED Page 3
17 September 2001
shall be eligible to express preferences in the consensus process and also to vote
on all matters coming before the task force.
Record Keeping
Minutes shall be taken at all meetings. The City Manager shall appoint a City
employee to serve as secretary to the task force. Draft minutes shall be
distributed to the task force for consideration and approval at the next meeting.
Meeting Dates, Times and Subcommittees
The date, time and frequency of task force meetings shall be determined by the
membership. The chair of the task force shall appoint subcommittees when
he/she deems it appropriate.
Public Participation
On each agenda of the task force, time shall be allocated for public comment.
The chair, in addition to this noted public time, may allow further comment by
non -task force members at the chair's discretion during the course of a meeting.
Public Notice of uRcoming meetings will be distributed to the press at least seven
days before the meeting.
Staff
The Superintendent of Schools and City Manager or their designees shall be
primary staff to the task force. Other staff members from both agencies may be
called upon or utilized from time to time for specific assignments to work for the
task force on specific assignments.
Tenn of the Task Force
The term of the task force shall expire upon completion of its charge. However,
this shall be no later than 30 June 2002 unless specifically extended by vote of the
School Board and City Council.
8.1.2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 09/18/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001
SUBJECT: Clackamas County Coordinating Committee
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Clackamas County
Coordinating Committee by-laws and select a member to serve as the City's
representative on the committee.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y N
j FUNDING SOURCE:
I
L_
ATTACHMENTS:
September 12, 2001
Staff Report from
Kincaid
PUBLISHED NOTICES
(Date):
Resolution no.:
Previous Council consideration:
CHIEF OF STA F CITY M AGER
/--/z - Ul
Signoff/date
L2- "_eol
Signoff/dat
P/Special Projects/Cover Summary - Clackamas County Coordination Committee
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Robert A. Kincaid, Chief of Staff
SUBJECT: Clackamas County Coordinating Committee
DATE: September 12, 2001
ACTION
Adopt the proposed Clackamas County Coordinating Committee By -Laws.
Select a mernber to serve as the City's representative on the Clackamas County Coordinating
Committee.
Provide direction to the City's representative regarding countywide parks and library financing
in the future.
BACKGROUND
Almost two years ago, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners initiated the Clackamas
County Concurrency Project. The purpose of the project was to get local governments to
collectively examine growth issues with infrastructure capacity in the County.
From this project sprung a series of recommendations ranging from suggested orklinancc
provisions centering on development to financing infrastructure needs.
At the Timothy Lake Retreat this year, those in attendance agreed that forming a Clackamas
County Coordinating Committee made up of elected officials would be a promising idea.
To implement these intergovernmental issues or at least take some of them to the next levet, the
Commissioners have now proposed to establish the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee.
The Coordinating Committee is an elected officials group comprised of each City government,
up to two special districts and up to two fire districts. Technical committees made up of staff
Clackamas County Coordination Committee
Page 1 of 2
1?5
employees support the Coordinating Committee. The County is in the process of finalizing by-
laws formalizing the Committee structure. Attached is a copy of the by-laws.
ANALYSIS
The first meeting of the Coordinating Committee is September 26`h at 7:00 P.M. The first topic
to be worked on is the subject of library and parks financing in the County.
As you will recall, the County had a difficult time balancing their budget this year and the
Commissioners' commitment to continue library funding expires this fiscal year. Funding for the
City's library is extremely important. Currently, the City receives over 1.3 million dollars from
the County to support the library operations. If the Commission does not continue the current
funding arrangement, the City could experience serious financing problems.
Clackamas County Coordination Committee
Mage 2 of 2
126
ro c_-rt..'V` C 1 L
CLACKAMAS
COUNTY Board of Commissioners
T& Mayur s and District Chairs
FROM: Michael Jordan, Chair`
DATE: August 29, 2001
MICHAEL J. JORDAN
CHAIR
1 1 BILL KENNEMER
COMMISSIONER
SEP 01 2001 COLARRYOER
MMISSIONER
CITY OF LAKE O5W EGC1
RE: Formation of Clackamas County Coordinating Committee
At our Timothy Lake Retreat, those in attendance were in agreement that we
should attempt to form a Clackamas County Coordinating Committee of elected
representatives supported by staff advisory committees.
The Managers, Chiefs and Administrators met last Friday to review comments
and revise the By-laws. Attached is a marked up copy of the By-laws to show
the revisions that were made to them based on input received. Also attached is
a final copy of the By-laws without the mark-ups. Each jurisdiction should adopt
these and appoint a representative according to the procedure outlined in the By-
laws. Please send a letter to the County indicating who will represent your
jurisdiction or bring it to the first meeting of the Coordinating Committee.
'v"ve have scheduled the ffr t meeting of the Coordinating Committee or,
Wednesday, September 26`h at 7:00 PM. The meeting will be held in the
Clackamas County Sunnybrook Service Center located at 9101 SE Sunnybrook
Blvd. At that meeting we will work on the organizational issues, such as the best
meeting day/time, and other start-up issues. In addition we will present material
to discuss how or if to proceed on the formation of a Parks/Library District as a
funding mechanism for local services.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call either Steve Rhodes or me.
906 Main Street • Oregon City, OR 97045-1882 • (503) 655-8581 • FAX (503) 650-8944
WEB ADDRESS: www.co.clackamas.or.us • E-MAIL: bcc«co.clackamas.or.us
t..� PnnleO on 5010 tecyclRA w.tn 20y; poSDconsuiner waste
CLACKAMAS COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE BY-LAWS
PURPOSE
The Clackamas County Coordinating Committee will review and comment on
major land use and transportation issues, plans and projects and provide a
forum for discussion on these resulting in recommendations for a coordinated
approach when appropriate.
The Committee's primary and most common function is to establish positions of
consensus on land use and transportation issues among Clackamas County's
local governments, which may be carried into regional and state discussions as
"countywide" positions.
2. MEMBERSHIP POLICY BODY
The voting membership shall consist of elected representatives or an alternate
appointed by the City Council of the cities of Barlow, Canby, Estacada,
Gladstone, Happy Valley, Johnson City, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Molalla,
Oregon City, Rivergrove, Sandy, Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville and
Clackamas County. The voting membership shall also include up to two elected
representatives of Fire Districts, up to two elected representatives of Water
Districts/Authorities and up to two elected representatives of Sanitary Sewer
Districts/Authorities.
The Special Districts/Authorities representatives shall be designated by
agreement among the districts represented. The process for designating the
representatives shall be established by agreement among each of the groups of
Districts/Authorities.
Each jurisdiction with a voting membership shall have one vote. Clackamas
County and cities and special districts of Clackamas County representatives to
JPACT and MPAC will be on the policy body but shall not have an additional
vote.
3. OFFICERS
The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee shall be elected annually by
members of the committee. The Secretary of the Committee shall be a County
staff member designated by the Board of County Commissioners.
128
CCCC By-laws
August 24, 2001
Page 2
4. PROCEDURES
A. Meetings: Meetings will be held monthly on a day to be determined by the
committee or called as needed by the chairperson or by a vote of the
committee. The secretary is responsible for notifying members of the
meeting time and place and for preparing the agenda.
B. Quorum: A quorum of the committee shall consist of thirteen voting
members.
C. Voting: Votes in the committee shall carry by a simple majority of those
present, provided that no action shall be taken unless a quorum is
present. Member jurisdictions may designate in writing a member from
another jurisdiction to serve as their representative, and such
representative shall be entitled to the number of votes according to that
designation.
D. Alternates: A designated alternate will sit in the absence of a member and
shall have full voting rights. Alternates will be appointed by the member
jurisdiction.
E. Records: All committee actions shall be documented in the form of
minutes, memoranda and special reports. The secretary will be
responsible for such documentation and distribution of such minutes,
memoranda and reports.
F. Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts' Rules newly
revised.
G. Agenda Items: Before presentation to the CCCC, agenda items shall be
sent to the member jurisdictions and to all Fire Districts, Water
Districts/Authorities and Sanitary Sewer Districts/Authorities for
discussion by the governing body. Compliance with this requirement may
be waived where circumstances warrant faster action by a majority vote of
the committee.
CCCC By-laws
August 24, 2001
Page 3
5. MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The appointed Administrator of each of the cities, districts, authorities and the
County shall serve as a Management Advisory Committee. The Committee will
provide overview and support of the work of the Technical Committees and
provide advice to the Coordinating Committee. The Committee shall also have
the responsibility, as directed by the Coordinating Committee, of constituting any
ad hoc committees or other groups established for information and advice on
specific issues. The Management Advisory Committee shall meet monthly.
6. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
The Policy Group shall be informed and advised by the following standing
technical advisory committees, as,well as other ad hoc committees established
for information and advice on specific issues, plans or projects of interest to the
committee.
A. Transportation Advisory Committee: The membership of the
Transportation Advisory Committee shall consist of staff representatives
of all agencies on the policy body and is to review transportation plans,
projects and funding issues, and make recommendations to the policy
body. The Transportation Advisory Committee shall operate under the
same procedures as the policy body, meeting monthly on a day to be
determined by committee members.
B. Land Use Advisory Committee: The membership of this committee shall
consist of the planning directors or the staff persons with lead planning
responsibility for all agencies on the policy body. The committee is to
focus on land use issues and transportation issues that may have an
impact on land use. The committee shall operate under the same
procedures as the policy body, meeting monthly on a day to be
determined by committee members or when scheduled by the Chairman
or by a vote of the committee.
7. AMENDMENTS
These by-laws may be amended from time to time by a majority of the members
of the Committee, provided that all voting members of the committee and all Fire
Districts, Water Districts/Authorities and Sanitary Sewer Districts/Authorities
have been sent copies of the proposed amendments prior to the meeting where
action on the rules is scheduled.
MEMORANDUM
380 "A" AVENUE
DATE: September 17, 2001
IUDIE HAMMERSTAD,
MAYOR
POST OFFICE BOX 369
TO:
Members of the City Council
LAKE OSWEGO,
was given the privilege of choosing and contacting nine possible members to
COUNCILORmeet
OREGON 97034
FROM:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
(503) 635-0213
1. Lakeridge Student: Holly Glickman, 17643 Kelok Road, LO 97034 (534 -
FAX (503) 697-6594
SUBJECT:
Selection Committee for Unsung Heroes
MAYOROr i.oswego.or. us
(636-2271)
KARL ROHDE,
COUNCILOR
DATE: September 17, 2001
IUDIE HAMMERSTAD,
MAYOR
Gay and Carole Dickerson have been working on this program. They gave me
a list of people who they thought would be good to be on this committee, and I
GAY GRAHAM'
was given the privilege of choosing and contacting nine possible members to
COUNCILORmeet
on Oct. 15, and possibly the 22nd to make the selections. I have done that,
and the following people have agreed to serve:
TACK HOFFMAN,
COUNCILOR
1. Lakeridge Student: Holly Glickman, 17643 Kelok Road, LO 97034 (534 -
9562)
ELLIE McPEAK,
2. Lake Oswego HS Student: Lindsay Stevenson, 13722 Melrose Pl. LO 97035
COUNCILOR
(636-2271)
KARL ROHDE,
COUNCILOR
3• Gwen Harvey, Independent employment consultant 4333 Orchard Way,
97035 [636-3265 (0) 697-0793 (H)j
BILL SCHOEN,
COUNCILOR
4• Richard Knoles, President, Mt. Park Board of Directors 17 Falstaff, LO
97035 (699-9566)
IOHN TURCHI,
COUNCILOR
5. Roger Hennagin, Attorney, 1131 Devon Lane, LO 97034. (636-0400)
6. Eileen Cain, recommended by ACC 6501st St., #3, LO 97034 (699-0141)
7. Art Scevola, Stockbroker, 1454 Glenmorrie (636-8455)
8. Don Burdick, 434 SW Ridgeway Road (635-3935)
9. Diane Hilton, Executive Director, Mary's Woods (675-2012)
10. Brian Monihan, Editor, 771!e Lnke Oswego Revieu) (635-8811)