HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2001-10-16Lake Oswego
City Council
S aa(
AMeeting of
City Councilors
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman. Council President
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde
Bill Schoen
Gay Graham
John Turchi
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MORNING MEETING
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
7:30 a.m.
Council Chambers
City Hall
380 A Avenue
AGENDA
Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us
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 Electronic Agendas
5.2 Selection of a Voting Delegate for League of Oregon Cities...........................................I
Annual Business Meeting
5.3 Sister City
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
If needed, pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
DATE
MORNING
EVENING MEETINGS
MEETINGS — 7:30 a.m.
— 6:00 p.m.
Tuesday,
Special Meeting 7 p.m. Council Chambers
October 23
• Smart Growth and New Urbanism Forum
Wednesday,
Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego School District
October 24
6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Tuesday,
No Meetings
October 30
Monday,
[Uforination Session with PRAB
November 5
Courtroom (4-6 p.m)
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Park Rules
• Park Fees
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
November 6
Future Agenda Schedule
• Service Contract for the Lake Interceptor
Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and TV Inspection
project
• New Professional of the Year Award, Terri
Bassett
Public Hearings
• Local Street Connectivity
(LU 00-0015 A/Ord. 2307)
Nov 9-11
League ofOregon Cities —Eugene
Tuesday,
Special Meeting
November 13
•
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Re.Wdar Session
November 20
Future Agenda Schedule
Public Hearings
• Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98)
• Building height in Lakewood and Country
Club/N. Shore Assoc. (LU 01-0050)
Tuesday,
No Meeting
November 27
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regular Session
December 4
Future Agenda Schedule
• Unsung Heroes Award
Public Hearings
Master Fee Schedule
Tuesday,
1r2eeial Meeting
December 1 I
Tuesday,
Agenda Review
Regi+lar Session
December 18
Future Agenda Schedule
• ACC Marketing Presentation
Public Hearings
• Long Term Care Housing (LU 99-0070)
• Zoning/Development Code Consolidation
(LU 0 1 -0048)
Tuesday,
No M+ eetings—City Nall Closed
December 25
BOLD ITEM 5 — News Issues added to Calendar
Items known as of 10/12/01
N:\Agendas\Agcndaforms\Schedule.doc
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE;
ROLLING UPDATE
AWAITING MEETING DATE
NO SPECIFIC DATE AT THIS TIME STATUS
• Joint Meeting with School Board........................Quarterly
• Council goal update.............................................Monthly
• Consolidated Land Use Map LU 99-0002 ..........Awaiting Planning Commission decision
• Variance Criteria (LU 99-0059) ..........................Awaiting input by interested parties
• Water Policies
• Public Facilities .................................................. After March 15
BOLD ITEMS — News Issues added to Calendar
Items known as of 10/12/01
N:\Agcndas\Agendafoniis\Schcdule.doc
5.2 AM
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/ 16/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Selection of a Voting Delegate for League of Oregon Cities Annual
Business Meeting
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Council should select a voting delegate and alternate for the Business Meeting on Sunday,
November 11.
ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS:
IMPACT:
• Schmitz memo of
11 October 2001
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoffldate
I ocumentf
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY MIANAGER
signoffldate
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager 4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: League of Oregon Cities Conference - Selection of Delegate and
Alternate
DATE: 11 October 2001
At its meeting of 16 October, the Council is to select the delegate and alternate for
the League of Oregon Cities conference in November. Council members who
have registered to attend the conference are:
Jack Hoffman
Gay Graham
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde
John Turchi
3
League of Orc9on Ci ties
76' ANNUAL- CONFERENCE and BUSINESS MEETING
November 9 - 11, 2001 — Hilton Eugene & Conference Center
Designation of Voting Delegate
at Annual Business Meeting
The annual business meeting will be held Sunday, November 11, at 8:30 a.m. Each
city is entitled to cast one vote at the business meeting; however, all city officials are
encouraged to attend.
Use this form to indicate those persons who will represent your city as a voting delegate
and alternate delegate. The voting delegate or alternate should pick up a voting card at
the Conference Registration Desk on Sunday morning prior to entering the business
meeting. NOTE: Delegates may not vote without a voti_ng_card. and voting cards will
be issued only to a Person indicated on this form. Voting by proxy will not be permitted.
FOR THE CITY OF Lake oswecto
VOTING DELEGATE
Name Coucilor Jack Hoffman
Title-- Council President
ALTERNATE
Name Ellie McPeak
Title ---c i Councilor-
Submitted
ounci>or
Submitted by
Return b October 26 to: (Signature)
-x---- ---- Name Robyn Christie
League of Oregon Cities
P.O. Box 928 Title Cit- erc)rrlPr
Salem, OR 97308 Telephone Number_ 503-675-3984
W ALOC%LOCCONF\2001%egwpxCh deft Ilr frm.wpd
October 5, 2001
The Honorable Mayor Judie Hammerstad
City of Lake Oswego
17330 Grand View Court
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Judie;
16116/oi ,4m
pfi,je,-gcc.D'rrL�
Did you know that the State of Oregon has the distinct privilege of providing the
Christmas 71"ee for our Nation's Capitol in Washington D. C: for Christmas 20027
A Capitol Christmas Tree, complete with lighting ceremony, has been the
tradition on the west lawn of the Capitol since 1964. And because it's Oregon's
Gift to the Nation, I'm asking your assistance to help sponsor our gift to
Washington, D.C. and join the Planning Team.
This year's 70 -foot tree will be from the Umpqua National Forest. The tree will
be driven through Oregon and continue along the historic Oregon Trail,
reaching Washington, D.C. on December 2, 2002. 50 smaller trees will be part
of the convoy, to be distributed among House and Senate office buildings and
other government offices as a Gift from the People of Oregon.
The tree and its more than 10,000 lights and 4,000 handmade ornaments by
Oregon school children will be broadcast on the Internet in December via our
web site link. The website will feature pictures of holiday decorations, snowmen
on the Capitol lawn, sledding on the grounds and a picture album of past trees.
The actual lighting ceremony is usually broadcast live on CNN and C -SPAN on or
about the 71h of December.
Because I'm on the committee as the Chairperson of the Outreach/ Recruitment
Team and I live in Lake Oswego, I want to see the tree come to Lake Oswego.
Tentatively, I have Oregon's Gift to the Nation slated to stop in Lake Oswego. I
would like to ask your assistance in finding corporate sponsors and partners.
Our State Kick -Off Celebration is slated for 11:00 AM, November 7, 2001 in
Roseburg and I'd like to see you or your designated representative at that event as
a Planning Partner.
Benefits of sponsoring Oregon's Gift to the Nation:
Full exposure to over hundreds of thousands of community citizens,
from school -aged children to senior -level executives and
congressional attendees from all over the State of Oregon
• Opportunity to promote your company or organization brand
and align it with other key companies
Promote your company to potential customers, suppliers and
partners
00 Opportunity to demonstrate community and corporate leadership
Distinguish your firm as one with a sincere presence or interest
Extensive networking opportunities, allowing for in person customer
contact and one-to-one meetings
U Customized sponsorship packages enabling you to
competitively position your company or organization the way
you want to
Increased flow of traffic through the sponsorship and exhibit areas
within communities.
. Great opportunity to evaluate potential partners and other alliances
Distribute Industry Research Reports and Company Literature to
a very targeted market
Host breakfast, luncheon, or reception for program attendees
Privilege to have display table or booth and distribute company
literature and hang company sign
0 Hyper -link on Oregon's Gift to the Nation Web site
Lake Oswego
City Council
Meeting o
AV 1/,ft 2001
---� r -- I-
C
THIS DOCUMENT
.4
HAS -1 Rt*-*',PHO'I-'OGRAPIIED
. I
FO ASSURI.J
�j 4��l�/ Q 0✓ C✓ �j Gdpu.��
October 5, 2001 G���/�� IV
The Honorable Mayor Judie Hammerstad
City of Lake Oswego
17330 Grand View Court
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Judie;
Did you know that the State of Oregon has the distinct privilege of providing the
Christmas Tree for our Nation's Capitol in Washington D. C. for Christmas 20021
A Capitol Christmas Tree, complete with lighting ceremony, has been the
tradition on the west lawn of the Capitol since 1964. And because it's Oregon's
Gift to the Nation, I'm asking your assistance to help sponsor our gift to
Washington, D.C. and join the Planning Team.
This year's 70 -foot tree will be from the Umpqua National forest. The tree will
be driven through Oregon and continue along the historic Oregon Trail,
reaching Washington, D.C. on December 2, 2002. 50 smaller trees will be part
of the convoy, to be distributed among House and Senate office buildings and
other government offices as a Gift from the People of Oregon.
The tree and its more than 10,000 lights and 4,000 handmade ornaments by
Oregon school children will be broadcast on the Internet in December via our
web site link. The website will feature pictures of holiday decorations, snowmen
on the Capitol lawn, sledding on the grounds and a picture album of past trees.
The actual lighting ceremony is usually broadcast live on CNN and C -SPAN on or
about the 71h of December.
Because I'm on the committee as the Chairperson of the Outreach/ Recruitment
Team and I live in Lake Oswego, I want to see the tree come to Lake Oswego.
Tentatively, I have Oregon's Gift to the Nation slated to stop in Lake Oswego. I
would like to ask your assistance in finding corporate sponsors and partners.
Our State Kick -Off Celebration is slated for 11:00 AM, November 7, 2001 in
Roseburg and I'd like to see you or your designated representative at that event as
a Planning Partner.
Donating to Oregon's Gift to the Nation campaign is easy and tax-deductible.
We are looking for Corporate Sponsors to give a donation at the:
Douglas Fir ($ 10,000)
Chinook Salmon ($5,000)
Meadowlark ($ 2)500)
Beaver or Duck ($ 1,000)
Oregon Grape ($ 500)
Swallowtail Butterfly ($ 100)
Hazelnut ($ 50) level
or give whatever they canl In-kind donations are extremely welcome. The
benefits of being a Sponsor of Oregon's Gift to the Nation are rewarding.
Sponsors and their corporate logo are highlighted on all publicity material,
transportation trailers and Travel Coaches.
1 would personally like to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this
special community celebration opportunity. Feel free to contact me at the
following numbers:
Work: (503) 601-2214
Cell: (503) 577-3973
Horne: (503) 636-0431
Sincerely,
Lor n Umphfres
iti-each/Recruitment Chairperson
Benefits of sponsoring Oregon's Gift to the Nation:
Full exposure to over hundreds of thousands of community citizens,
from school -aged children to senior -level executives and
congressional attendees from all over the State of Oregon
Opportunity to promote your company or organization brand
and align it with other key companies
Promote your company to potential customers, suppliers and
partners
Opportunity to demonstrate community and corporate leadership
Distinguish your firm as one with a sincere presence or interest
Extensive networking opportunities, allowing for in person customer
contact and one-to-one meetings
G Customized sponsorship packages enabling you to
competitively position your company or organization the way
you want to
Increased flow of traffic through the sponsorship and exhibit areas
within communities.
Great opportunity to evaluate potential partners and other alliances
Distribute Industry Research Reports and Company Literature to
a very targeted market
Host breakfast, luncheon, or reception for program attendees
Privilege to have display table or booth and distribute company
literature and hang company sign
Hyper -link on Oregon's Gift to the Nation Web site
Lake Oswego
City Council
Meeti*ng of
Ate 1 2001
City Councilors
Judie Han:merstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, Council President
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde
Revised 10/16/01
CITY COUNC 1 L.
SPECIAL MORNING MEETING
Tuesday. October 16, 2001
7:30 a.m.
Continued to 5:30 p.m. in the Council Workroom
Council Chambers
City Hall
380 A Avenue
AGENDA
Bill Schoen Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Gay Graham Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
John Turchi E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: (503)675-3984
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please
contact 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 Electronic Agendas
5.2 Selection of a Voting Delegate for League of Oregon Cities...........................................1
Annual Business Meeting
5.3 Sister Cite
Continued to 5:30 p.m. in the Council Workroom
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
If needed, pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, Council President
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde
Bill Schoen
Gay Graham
John Turchi
Revised 10/16/01
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
City Hall
380 A Avenue
Also published on the interact at: ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
E -Mail: public_afiairs@ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: (503) 675-3984
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Lstimated Start
'rme Pape it
6:00 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
6:05 3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Recognition of Kathy Kern, Corinne Hickey and Wayne
Richards for work on Farmers Market
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 REPORTS
4.1.1 Award of a public improvement contract for construction of .
FY 2001/02 water system rehabilitation program
Action: Removed from the agenda
City Council Agenda
October 16, 2001
PaL,C 1 O1,0
Estimated
rim
Revised /0/10/01
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 01-79, correcting a zoning map error on .......................................
approximately 1.5 acres located at 15835 and the eastern
portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (21E08CB, Tax Lots 100
and 101, specifically Lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First
Addition), by changing the zone designation from R-7.5 (low
density residential) to GC (general commercial)
Action: Adopt Resolution 01-79
4.2.2 Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to acquire .........
right-of-way and/or easements for the construction of Phase
One Bryant Road improvements per the Bryant (toad
Corridor Study, April, 2001
Action: Move to item 7. 1.1
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 September 4, 2001, morning meeting .....................
4.3.2 September 17, 2001, information session ...................
4.3.3 September 18, 2001, morning meeting ........................
4.3.4 September 18, 2001, joint meeting with the Historic
Resources Advisory Board
7
21
4.3.5 September 18, 2001, regular meeting.................................................................77
Action: Approve minutes as corrected
MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA
VOICE VOTE
END CONSENT AGENDA
6:10 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6:15 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 c?f three minutes per citizen shall apply.
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
Page 2 of 6
,estimated
lme
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revised 10/16/01
6:20 7.1 Planning Commission recommendation to adopt LU 01-111129 . ......................95
Comprehensive Plan text amendments to Goal 12,
Transportation, Figure 19, -Transportation Facilities Plain,
related to projects recommended by the Bryant Road Corridor
Plan
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
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 approve LU 01-
0029 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance
2312 for adoption.
Discussion
7.1.1 (4.2.2) Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to
acquire right-of-way and/or easements for the construction of
Phase One Bryant Road improvements per the Bryant Road
Corridor Study, April, 2001
Action: Move to adopt Resolution 01-83
tr 40 7.2 Proposal to annex .0.5 acres at 13020 Knaus Road ........................................135
(AN 01-0005/0rd. 2305)
Ordinance 2305, an Ordinance annexing one parcel on Knaus
Road, comprising 0.5 acres in the aggregate to the City of Lake
Oswego (13020 Knaus Road); declaring City of Lake Oswego
Toning pursuant to the lake Oswego Code 49.62.1600; and
withdrawing the area from the Lake Grove Fire District #57
and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sherift"s Patrol District,
while retaining the parcel within the lake Grove Park District.
(21 E 04BB Tax Lot 04800) (AN 0 1 -0005)
Public Hearing Process:
Cit, Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
Page 3 o1'6
Eu mated
�
Revised 10/16/01
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
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 2305 and authorize the City Recorder to mail the
Ordinance to Metro and all necessary parties.
Discussion
7.3 Planning Commission's recommendation to approve amendments ............157
to LOC 48.20.535 (4), Special Street Setbacks (LU 99-0020)
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
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 approve LU 99-
0020 and direct staff to prepare filldiligs and finalize Ordinance
2302 for adoption.
Discussion
- 1111 7.4 Sign Code amendment for signs in the public right-of-way ..........................223
City Council
Ordinance 2310, 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 and specified zoning
districts
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
eet-in g
October 16, 2001
4 of6
Estimated
Tl=
Revised 10/16/01
Staff Report by Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
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
7:30 8. ORDINANCES AND FINDINGS
8.1 Vacating portions of Tenth Street....................................................................249
Ordinance 2304, a special Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Lake Oswego vacating portions of Tenth Street
between Evergreen Road and Berwick Road
MOTION
DISCUSSION
ROLL CALL VOTE
7:40 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
This agenda item provides all opportunih, fitr individual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on platters not otherwise oil the
agenda. Each Councilor will he given five minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees,
and Intergovernmental Committees
,:55 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.1 Resolution 01-77, accepting; a Federal Emergency Management .................259
Agency (FEMA) Grant to assist in the City's efforts to provide
sprinklers to Foster Care Facilities
Motion: Move to adolit Resolution 01-77
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
1'age 5 of'6
Dmnaated
L=
10.2 City Attorney
rKJ 11. ADJOURNMENT
Revised 10/16101
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 the
Reference section.
Citi• Council Mccting
October 16, 2001
Page 6 of 6
City Council
Judie Hanunerstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, Council President
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde
Bill Schoen
Gay Graham
John Turchi
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, October 1(4_2M
6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
City Hall
380 A Avenue
Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: (503) 675-3984
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Estimated Start
Tune Page #
6:00 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
6:05 3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Recognition of Kathy Kern, Corinne Hickey and Wayne
Richards for work on Farmers Market
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 REPORTS
4.1.1 Award of a public improvement contract for construction of ..........................1
FY 2001/02 water system rehabilitation program
Action: Award the public improvement contract for construction
of 2001-2002 annual water system rehabilitation program to Canby
Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $924,838
City Council Agenda
October 16, 2001
Page l of 6
E mm ated
MC
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 01-79, correcting a zoning map error on...........................................7
approximately 1.5 acres located at 15835 and the eastern
portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (21 E08CB, Tax Lots 100
and 101, specifically Lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First
Addition), by changing the zone designation from R-7.5 (low
density residential) to GC (general commercial)
Action: Adopt Resolution 01-79
4.2.2 Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to acquire ...........................21
right-of-way and/or easements for the construction of Phase
One Bryant Road improvements per the Bryant Road
Corridor Study, April, 2001
Action: Adopt Resolution 01-83
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 September 4, 2001, morning; nnecting.................................................................2')
4.3.2 September 17. 2001, information session...........................................................45
4.3.3 September 18, 2001, morning mecting...............................................................57
4.3.4 September 18, 2001, joint meeting with the Historic.......................................71
Resources Advisory Board
4.3.5 September 18, 2001, regular meeting.................................................................77
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
s 10 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
t 1 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 tithe limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply.
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
Page 2 of 6
Estiswred
Ttnc
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6:20 7.1 Planning Commission recommendation to adopt LU 01-0029 . ......................95
Comprehensive Plan text amendments to Goal 12,
Transportation, Figure 19, -Transportation Facilities Plan,
related to projects recommended by the Bryant Road Corridor
Plan
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
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 inove to approve LU 01-
0029 and direct staff'to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance
2312 for adoption.
Discussion
6:44 7.2 Proposal to annex .05 acres at 13020 Knaus Road ........................................135
(AN 01-0005/Ord. 2305)
Ordinance 2305, an Ordinance annexing one parcel on Knaus
Road, comprising 0.5 acres in the aggregate to the City of Lake
Oswego (13020 Knaus Road); declaring City of Lake Oswego
Zoning pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code 49.62.1600; and
withdrawing the area from the Lake Gro. • Fire District #57
and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District,
while retaining the parcel within the Lake Grove Park District.
(21 E0413B Tax Lot 04800) (AN 0 1 -0005)
Public lfearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
Public Testimony
• 5 minutes for individuals
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
Page 3 o1'6
F>;; �•;..rccl
;n.
• 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 prove to enact
Ordinance 2305 and authorize the City Recorder to mail the
Ordinance to Metro and all necessary parties.
Discussion
7.3 Planning Commission's recommendation to approve amendments ............157
to LOC 48.20.535 (4), Special Street Setbacks (LU 99-01120)
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
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 approve LU 99-
0020 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance
2302 for adoption.
Discussion
-00 7.4 Sign Code amendment for signs in the public right-of-way ..........................223
Ordinance 2310, 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 and specified zoning
districts
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
Public Testimony
• 5 minutes for individuals
City Council Meeting
October 16, 2001
Page 4 of 6
Estimated
erne
• 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 stove to enact
Ordinance 2310
Discussion
30 8. ORDINANCES AND FINDINGS
8.1 Vacating portions of Tenth Street....................................................................249
Ordinance 2304, a special Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Lake Oswego vacating portions of Tenth Street
between Evergreen Road and Berwick Road
MOTION
DISCUSSION
ROLL CALL VOTE
,:40 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise oil the
agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees,
and Intergovernmental Committees
%:55 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.1 Resolution 01-77, accepting a Federal Emergency Management .................259
Agency (FEMA) Grant to assist in the City's efforts to provide
sprinklers to Foster Care Facilities
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 01-77
10.2 City Attorney
8:00 11. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 6
October 16, 2001
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 the
Reference section.
City ('ouncil Mceting
October 16, 2001
Page 6 of 6
4.1.1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/16/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Award of a public improvement contract for construction of 2001-2002 Annual
Water System Rehabilitation Program (Work Order 1134)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
t,.Iove to award the public improvement contract for construction of 2001-2002 Annual Water System
Rehabilitation Program to Canby Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $924,838.30.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
$924,838.30
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y Yes N
FUNDING SOURCE:
Mitei Utility Fivid
/t++� CITY ENGINEER
_ /v1()//
Date
ATTACHMENTS:
October 10, 2001 Komarek
Council Report
CITY M401AGER
10 x-01
Date
1R-,sI0RI._K\wo\Wo1 I W Wtr•"hah\aranda_theckhetron+t-1son dw
II NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.: n/a
Resolution no.: neo
Previous Council
consideration: Nene
CITY OF LADE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Assistant City Engineere,0--
SUBJECT: Recommendation of Bid Award for Construction of 2001-2002 Annual
Water System Rehabilitation Program
DATE: October 10, 2001
Action
The Council is requested to award a public improvement contract to Canby Excavating, Inc. in
the amount of $924,838.30 for construction of 2001-2002 Annual Water System Rehabilitation
Program.
Introduction
This Contract requires Council award in order to comply with City and State contracting and
purchasing procedures. The adopted FY 2001-02 budget appropriated $1,144,000 to construct
this year's annual waterline rehabilitation program. Therefore, the City will realize an estimated
cost savings of $219,000 relative to the budget appropriation.
Background
The City has annually budgeted for and constructed new water mains to replace existing water
mains identified as being hydraulically deficient, of substandard construction or maintenance
intensive due to frequent leaks. Historically, the annual budget for the main replacement
program is about $500,000 dollars. Since 1995, the City has spent in excess of $1.3 million
dollars to replace water mains throughout the City. This year's project focuses on the last
significant area of the City with pipeline deficiencies: the First Addition Neighborhood.
3
Council Report
Page 2 of 3
The pipes being replaced are part of the original water system the City of Oswego purchased
from the Oswego Light and Power Company back in 1925. Many of these pipes, constructed
prior to 1900, are too small to provide adequate capacity for today's peak day water demands and
fire suppression. The new pipes will provide adequate capacity for domestic and fire suppression
purposes and will reduce long-term maintenance costs. Approximately 14,000 feet of new pipe
will be installed.
Discussion
At 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday October 9, 2001, the City of Lake Oswego opened bids for the above
referenced project. Sixteen bids were received with the apparent low bid submitted by Werbin
West Contracting, Inc. The Bidders and the amounts bid are tabulated below:
Bidder Name
Bid Amount
Werbin West Contracting, Inc.
$832,637.20
Larson Golf Construction, Inc.
$895,977.00
Canby Excavating, Inc.
$924,838.30
New West Constructors, Inc.
$929,499.80
Thompson Brothers Excavating, Inc.
$951,237.60
K&R Plumbing Construction, Inc.
$954,196.20
Landis & Landis, LLC
$960,676.27
Utility Contractors, Inc.
$964,346.76
Moore Excavation, Inc.
$968,189.90
Dunn Construction, Inc.
$982,565.00
The Saunders Company
$999,550.00
Kerr Contractors, Inc.
$999,936.70
Copenhagen Utilities, Inc.
$1,037,464.80
C&M Construction, Inc.
$1,051,559.10
Mocon Corporation
$1,055,212.75
Benge Construction Co.
$1,093,093.93
Engineer's Estimate $1,100,000
Discussion
Following the bid opening, an evaluation of the Bids was conducted by City engineering and
legal staff. Based upon this evaluation, the bids of Werbin West Contracting, Inc. and Larson
Golf Construction, Inc. were determined to be materially non-responsive to the bidding
requirements of the project.
rd i
Council Report
Page 3 of 3
Werbin West Contracting, Inc. does not have current qualification status with the State of Oregon
for waterline and municipal street construction. Larson Golf Construction, Inc. does not
demonstrate relevant experience in the construction of municipal water distribution systems. In
addition, a special experience statement required to be submitted with each bid was absent from
the bid of Larson Golf Construction, Inc. as was the required approval letter from the State of
Oregon attesting to current qualification status for waterline and municipal street construction.
Based upon an evaluation of the third low bid, the City has determined that Canby Excavating,
Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid and therefore recommends award of a
construction contract for Work Order 1134: 2001-2002 Annual Water System Rehabilitation
Program to Canby Excavating, Inc.
Alternatives
The alternatives are to: 1) award the contract; 2) reject all bids and re -bid the project, or 3)
remove from the consent agenda and discuss.
Conclusion
The bidding process was conducted in accordance with the City's Public Contracting Procedures
and therefore, staff recommends that Council award the contract to Canby Excavating, Inc. in the
amount of $924,838.30.
J
H 'JOEL K'm*%Wo 1134Wtr•rehab ('OUNC'RPTammvclion doc
4.2.1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/16/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Resolution R-01-0079, Correcting a Zoning Map Error at 15835
and the eastern portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road
(21 E08CB, Tax Lots 100 and 101, specifically lots 5 and 6 of
Lake View Villas First Addition)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approve Resolution R-01-0079.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE
ATTACHMENTS:
Council Report dated
October 1, 2001
(E1)
Tax Lot Map
(E2)
2001 Zoning Map
(E3)
1950 Zoning Map
(E4)
1978 Zoning Map
(E5)
1982 Zoning Map
(F1) Resolution R-01-
0079
CO UNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT CITY
DIRECTOR MANAGER
c_.
Signo f/date Signoff/date
L:\Sid_S\GK-PostOfticcMapError\co,.cmcmoRcsolution 01-0079,1-
001
1-0071,1
QO1
NOTICED DATE:
Ordinance no.
Resolution no.: R-01-0079
Previous Council consideration:
CITY PAINAGER
Signoff/date
m
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the Lake Oswego City Council
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
CC: David D. Powell, City Attorney
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planne'
SUBJECT: Resolution R-01-0079, Correcting a Zoning Map Error at 15835 and the
eastern portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (21 E08C13, Tax Lots 100 and
101, specifically lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First Addition)
DATE: October 1, 2001
ACTION:
The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by staff to correct a
zoning map error at 15835 and the eastern portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (21E08CB, Tax
Lots 100 and 101, specifically lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First Addition) by:
• Amending the Zoning Map for the subject parcels from R-7.5 (Low Density Residential)
to GC (General Commercial).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
There are two parcels included in the Zoning Map amendment. The first is located at 15875
(2IE08CB tax lot 100, specifically lot 5 of Lake View Villas First Addition) and owned by the
United States Postal Service. The western '/4 of the property is zoned R-0, High -Density Residential
and the eastern'/4 is zoned R-7.5, Low -Density Residential. Only the eastern'/4 of the Postal
Service property is included in this correction. The second property included in this amendment is
located at 15835 Boones Ferry Road (21E08CI3 tax lot 100, specifically lot 6 of Lake View Villas
First Addition) and o«,ned by GK Travel. This property is currently zoned R-7.5, Low -Density
Residential. (Exhibit El and E2).
In 1978 the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan Map. The map designated both properties as P,
Public and has not changed since. This mapping correction will not change the Comprehensive
Plan Map designation. It will only correct the zoning map error.
003
Council Report R-01-0079
Page 1 of 2
f,
City Staff has been investigating the zoning on the subject parcels in coordination with a sign
related issue on the GK Travel parcel. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that
that the eastern'/4 of the Lake Grove Postal Service parcel and GK Travel's parcel were mapped as
R-7.5. However, there are no records of any land use action that designated the GK Travel parcel or
the eastern portion of the Postal Service parcel as R-7.5.
The City's records show that in 1950 (Exhibit E3) the zoning of the subject properties was GC
(General Commercial). In 1978 (Exhibit E4) the subject properties were zoned GC as well.
However, in 1982 (Exhibit E5) the City's zoning map shows the subject properties zoned R-7.5. To
this date, our June 2001 zoning map (Exhibit E2) shows both of these parcels zoned R-7.5.
Between 1978 and 1982 the City's zoning map shows the subject parcels had changed zoning from
GC to R-7.5. An extensive records search between the years 1978 and 1982 show no record of a
zone change for either of these parcels.
On August 2, 2001, staff mailed a letter to GK Travel and the Post Service requesting any
comments on the above findings. On August 6, 2001, staff received a phone call from GK Travel
requesting clarification of the letter. The caller did not state any opposition or provide any evidence
that the property was legally rezoned to R-7.5. On August 8, 2001, Staff contacted the Post Service
by phone. They did not have any opposition to the correction of the mapping error.
Based on the above information, planning staff concludes that a mapping error occurred between
1978 and 1982, resulting in the errant R-7.5 zoning designation of the subject parcels being shown.
Because this is deemed a mapping error, this correction may be addressed through adoption of a
Council Resolution. Staff proposes to correct the mapping error by amending the Zoning Map from
R-7.5, Low -Density Residential, to GC, General Commercial, by Council Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution R-01-0079.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use]
B. [No current exhibits]
C. [No current exhibits]
D. [No current exhibits]
E. GRAPHICS
E 1. Tax Lot Map
E2. 2001 Zoning Map
E3. 1950 Zoning Map
E4. 1978 Zoning Map
E5. 1982 Zoning Map
F. Written Materials
F l . Resolution 01-0079
G. Letters - None
L.\Sid_S'NGK-PostOfriccmapError\Council Report Resolution01-0079.doc
004
Council Report R-01-0079 Page 2 of 2
0 1 ..-----..._..• r'-.r"r""' _"'�' U LAI: K AM AS COUNTY N T Y (S L. I&O k l �
2.1 E D �G � (,a �,� LAKE OSWE(
s3
of ,
S E COR Q �y {)°, o "° �+ 04+iii CANCELLED TL'S
i,(I 210! 6400 3�
CHARLES BROWN SEE MAP r. IE BBC 3, rfi�A' 4201 'aboo 3'
I/4 COR DLC NO 64 < • •` 1 r i °r
a . • { P� ! 4201 3200 3�
wrs.o,,. .an i.,.r s s rr s ..�f••rs .ti ' r r ♦ e
rear Bio, Jo ` �aoR \ <` "o �3;�1� f ,6 t6. 6301 2404 6)
X600 1 500 400=«1 3004 .: !QI ` fay";(b' 401 2401 ac
(� Is1H 4101 4255 IUQ r°r 6l e5 ••• r•dr, a.0 zoo aool 6•
h
r. -.f
0 0j
4225 15415 I' I 15135• o r h a 3 4501 6501 r'
Q' --t— hid f+r�.`oor� 4302 1901 4
f rI t+,vf+ 801 4
O 700 I !
�; !t" 3 Oo0AI
r,
r k^ 15150 3�S
2` '' '.�, "• 1 6
9�0p2p
1L6 'n P•:. I 'yo 4 301
800 rc -., . • ,. ) . 3501
k ' 15110 ,i
LAKE Y J E `f\J V J 1 A I` U s'�r \ a,o 0
i h .o°r/ fr+ • 7600
_„w_� D' — ��_ _._-_ ._ �� _ ...a� rr A yp.✓�N_'= fi 4D �'. 1+ o/or ,1 102
Y 1. — Y•' .: r.• r• u d �� �o+ ��! i3 201
OAK ,r R14DG_E.- _� / `L ,+ �•,. 501
--' a _ �►_ b1 ' " ADJBINJ 1 % .. v r+� Uti 2363
I GO 1900• 9 ?000 . --- B-2-
9
2100 .,; {ifs ." 'o; u+•i tC'S y�9titi r{ 103
4214 1210 ISSSb f fNY=i '� x..2201
I 90U 2100 At a 6 i P`,
15!24 SEE MAP }r+ 1 }�.y( 1sl11 15105 (] / tP' _;;' r+�_ _ ,.� .� , vdr rd rr•dY r•'e ��
S• 1 " Is. J 1 J 1 T I A DD N �`�" fr f/ �Ia fir_ _•.. 1,� '\ �. 50 �,\ +'! �1f18A ��b p,[', wi r 4f QN ,'_' ..1 1
e :e ^ ♦ "'°/ ° \. \ 'r N gQ��" �y r �
--AVENUE it
dy `- SUPPLEMENTAL 00
1000
00
pUo 1 '3�ayq r, �•'
v 12 ,.ta 14QQ \y`a
o. 1100 Was
Ib 140 ►�j) # • °i o f L
leas
JIJ •, a yA •,\ ,
f
J.
2 00.. 9 '•�rL - I,r� 1 \b k M a ''r p'' •\ v �'" 10
J 1
{'394
6,,
!: '1.rat
'� :r.r%r19 k N �' - � \aa r � e '�• �O� f/ \ka3
077 . �� �
e {
p' :�'` �' ��L•4��[5>: 0400 \'ter ,� \ °i ,, t �� �s;A.. 1� °�
v t,'
46
{��ONyrJO ( 1 'f /. ♦kir:. \ s It'w Y%i' O\�2J.:-'rrn' \r`�St
,i.N pb� �r `' '� \�1s , y vl '•1, 100 Ifo
s.=.r� /(�� � ��\�' sr I�f • ,tb�,.>',,i0+� .n�\ [i'^''" iS v6 rr I
:'f E;" 1
i .f 1TM+' �T ��.'v, r r r �c•1 i •P". '.-1Yi- fit, �f, 5 ��7r r..- .�,r yr�f �'�'r h'r qj$ +.`- ' ',1
�
i j' t.' ((Ft`!{t;, : s1•,r• n ti, m Lti , �� G &A
v, f ��'r ptl, ,l) 1 1 lillt�� � '� •�4 r y r +'1L . FV .,�q`E .. JYy 1. r �f
4y i• r� �fi1 �t �.:`� h,N ti#i,�!''j�;r ..f :�'�.��'� ir%M1 � • n �Mf � "•.Vlti�?rt�'n ��ti. , 'll � ` �1
�, � ' ,r.�'v� � � K q F {M.x, , f t^i iY4"j�, t?�: }�M vq 1+� •r ri .5 Ali 1 j4 i i 3rd
1 o rl,�i ✓; � tr% t.,r 1�W!~�R 'i�r •tJ I�It}�1+{`� '. ��, �'' rT� in � �a r 1 � ;Y r.
�. { �� L '' 47KE'�'' i + 'r•��K �+, •� +•ngj:..d q 1 i �-4 1: � 4 }� �j . iv
L
t�� •r ,l� :If+ �1��jn�•i, �'! �, 1:'Y1111�'}���r•{�r�y, J!•T*��r 'F�y �� '•�: P. �fJr: > +F t;1 'i +Vti'r r, �'' C�,
r y `
J
(:a5'9"(�('�
t� _�Tf� e r •*L � # \ �(i V 1 �� .fr tij.. `�t{. � Vl
' r lr �t,r•:'r! ir�.r' 1 ��f \11 �r�:,t � rti i� af�lj �
Y � .r, I r r iv � iV' sm i4 f{. • }) jrti 1 � f�f. )1 , .,rf r i, l � -L 1I nq ' >.,+, e+- ��. t 1 �
�� `t b� fh vtl l 4 T+ r•� � .�:+'' C5� _ s rr c,
EX[- IlBI'f E2
June 2001 Luning Map
,�� ..r '•�f {i;�' .yii1 ^n 'irk ���� :,�r ••pf•• tt 1 �' {' Q
'�1`�`�M t� �) f}t �„i� ,i -k. � 1f. ^ 1 .Tt � f +r _r.r ` 1\- 5• r.
m
I- - - - -- -- -4 - -
�,.I.I i F I I I:
�1��:i�l l'; � � i N
4,11
SIIBLN_A I I
CT
AR14
1ri
^
ll
Al
206-
r 1
- -- - EXHIBIT 5A(
EXHIBIT E4
1978 Zoning Map
008- z�,
SCALE:, 1'.. 800'
- --
'--
__
•'-- - a00 1600 2/00 2200 x000
FEET
SCALE
_
I
IsioNs
_
O
i
. .I
9 A KE V S ti/ Y E
ZONING. MAR
FIRST READING - NOVEMBER 2,1982
I
SECOND READING - NOVEMBER 16,1982
EFFECTIVE DATE - DECEMBER 1.6,1982
1�,
i
"
� I
I I
t.ESIDEN IAL
I '
NST I!75
roll
•
I
•
A-z won .�- +. .+n Lt
i
Ilun-
-
•..`` P-lU Iu,M1A ,t. t, frf n••r
_
Ti6TZ71
-I
valuIY.+CTA:. 'rl vlc!
I'
IIICIAo aww"ICIAL syr-21r.7
'
arr Stt: cmrli[ ct [TtICr
t"ST I'm Cal[\tn:: . •'ITAICT -
_
INDUSTRIAL
MKIUM1.1I1100r11At. DISTAILt
,
INPUSTATAL PAM CT[-414
OTHER
�.� CAIPUS IL'STITV!W" 'ISIA1CT
EXHIBIT E5
—
MANAGEMENT OVERLAYS.
_
1982 Zoning Map
ruuurn MI.L rlur
(Note: The original map Is In color. The color
iV■/V�
map does in tact correspond to the R•7,5 1 C�
J
zoning for the subject properties.)
- •vi, 4^� .al'�.',Rf15G�M�is�F4 �,aYt•�b7 1
As
J
7,
d Tj•f:c� '�� _k�i..T A a a���3_ �f�+ �'- � t K ,. rL M �T,�.
� y
`{m" � ..-. r' r 1.....-� I � 1 tt_�` i' a'^•jr ° � }iq s ,i 1 :. I :.�
'� �r�^'�..✓� t, y,�' � �,yw���l�s„�' isGa s ` �! �, 4 ! k: �r Y 1,�, . � � r i 7i{71fl �' i�� k � � - •
r�•�i '.. ��"' Ir?';5rbt'� h'�.S t.'•��"'4�+ `� r � ' '.!- nl I� r� t r
- � � • .,� .. Ff ! t ^`� .-- 7JE4UAiA%'vtt±twh � .. ��
' - !'� � ANVM.iIlrmYY�iY
I I qr
f '�.� .„, f��1 c ; - 7„ [ Al d`� 1,,.�r♦i' ' • e� ,r .
?rx 4
�.ti ttt�Vu
r
4 0
r I
f I/kA
ti M•' - 1�-�M1 - h, �. Fesq•
NOW
Wip. A
JY..
A
... .
EXHIBIT E5
Continued
IG
RESOLUTION NO. 01-0079
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
CORRECTING A ZONING MAP ERROR ON APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES
LOCATED AT 15835 AND THE EASTERN PORTION OF 15875 BOONES
FERRY ROAD (21E08CB, TAX LOTS 100 AND 101, SPECIFICALLY LOTS 5
AND 6 OF LAKE VIEW VILLAS FIRST ADDITION), BY CHANGING THE
ZONE DESIGNATION FROM R-7.5 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO GC
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL).
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has an adopted and recognized Comprehensive
Plan Map and Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, in 1950 and 1978 the zoning of the properties located at 15835 and the
eastern portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (Tax Map 21E08CB, Tax Lots 100 and 101,
specifically lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First Addition) was GC, General
Commercial; and
WHEREAS, beginning in 1982, the Zoning Map has shown the subject properties as
zoned R-7.5, Low Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, an extensive search of the records between the years 1978 and 1982 shows
that, in fact, no zone change has occurred for the subject properties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concludes that there was a mapping error for the subject
properties;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
The Lake Oswego Zoning Map is hereby corrected to show the zone designation as GC
(General Commercial), rather than R 7.5 (Low Density Residential), for the properties
located at 15835 and the eastern portion of 15875 Boones Ferry Road (Tax Map
21E08CB, Tax Lots 100 and 101, specifically lots 5 and 6 of Lake View Villas First
Addition) as shown on attached Exhibit "A.".
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego held on the day of , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXHIBIT F-1
Resolution R-01-0079 Oil Page 1 �,(
EXCUSED:
ATTEST:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AST ORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
L:1Sid S1GK-PostOfficeMapErrorlDraftResolutionZCTravelAgency,doc
012
Resolution R-01-0079
Page 2
m
ru
555111] 1,-4co
15370 Li
WAY 15450
5450
EXHIBIT "A 1,D l'i 4 81
C) ca — C) 15 4 8 LO
OD
ru
Ln 01)
rl L,113r-") Ln :z I KINDER
60 w 41
-4 W C) 15572 1 CENTER
DISTRICT SHOP
15600 '-j Ul
15650 SCHOOL w
ci
BUS SHOP 15630
cil '6
LAKE GROVE 4J.10 15700 W �o 0"
15751 ol GRADE SCHOOL L3 C)
CHRISTIAN 15750
CHURCH C/R 15790
15760 CT.
15794
15620
115875 3777 IVII
R-01 15E
61
GROVE
51
158 C'
RS ON TAY
POST
PROF
15880 cfl ru OFFICE
OAKRIDGE
1-30 C3
c% LAK
C3 0 Ln w
00
CD Ln p
36
GN Ul 31
La
ONS .a
lop
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ciTY OF LAKE
OSWEGO CORIZECTING A ZONING MAP ERROR ON
p- 10 PPROXIMATE.LY 1.5 ACRES LOCATED AT 15835 AND THE EASTERN
AND 101, SPECIFICALLY LOTS 5 AND 0 OF LAKE VIEW VILLAS FIRST
50 ADDITION, BN'.A.-81ENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-7.5 (LOW
DENSITY IZESIDENTI.kL) TO GC (CENERAL COMMERCIAL).
RESOLUTIUN #R-01-0079
2.
Lo DATE: 10/16/01
SCALE: 1 250, 013
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
4*2e2
10/16/01
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Resolution 01-83, Authorizing the City Manager to Acquire Right-of-way and/or
Easements for the Construction of the Phase One Bryant Road Improvements
per the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, April 2001
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to acquire the right-of-way and/or
easements for the construction of the phase one Bryant Road improvements per the Bryant Road
Corridor Transportation Study, April 2001
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
$36,539.00
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y I X N
FUNDING SOURCE:
Systems Development
Charge Fund
CITY ENGINEER
Date
ATTACHMENTS:
• Schoening Council Report
dated October 10, 2001 with
attachments
• Resolution 01-83
—e /J/—
CITY MA AGER
Date
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: 0 1 -83
Previous Councii
consideration: None
('()MMON_F\TOM_T\WO Bryant Road Signals -WO 1140\agenda report. summary Acqui�ition'1'emplate 9 01.doc
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
1'0: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Mark Schoening, City Engineer
PREPARED BY: Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution 01-83, Authorizing the City Manager to Acquire Right -of -Way
and/or Easements for the Construction of the Phase One Bryant Road
Improvements per the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, April
2001
DATE: October 10, 2001
.Action
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution 01-83 authorizing the City Manager to acquire
right-of-way and/or easements on eight properties along Bryant Road for the construction of the
phase one Bryant Road improvements per the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study,
April.
Introduction
The Bryant Road Corridor Study identified both short and long term transportation
improvements on Bryant Road between Boones Ferry Road and Lakeview Boulevard necessary
to maintain safety, mobility and access for City residents. The right-of-way and easements
requested by Resolution 01-83 will allow for the improvements to be implemented as outlined in
the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, April 2001.
Back round
The City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contains three projects to address the safety and
congestion on Bryant Road from Boones Ferry Road to Lakeview Boulevard. The three projects
were combined to provide a more comprehensive review of the corridor and subsequent
construction of improvements identified in the corridor study. The projects as identified in the
City's CIP are: the Bryant and Lakeview Drive intersection project is described installation of
93 N
Council Report
Bryant Road Corridor Study
September , 2001
Page 2
turn lanes on Bryant Road and installation of a traffic signal with $350,000 budgeted; the Bryant
and Upper Drive project is described as a traffic signal project with $250,000 budgeted; and the
Bryant and Boones Ferry Road project is described as a project to install detection and improve
operations with a budget of $50,000.
The City hired DKS Associates to perform a corridor study and identify the appropriate
improvements. Following an extensive public involvement process the Bryant Road Corridor
Transportation Study, April 2001 was completed. The Corridor Study was presented to the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and City Council. Staff was directed to proceed with
implementation of the phase one improvements: a traffic signal at Upper Drive and Bryant; and a
traffic signal at Lakeview and Bryant Road, along with minor intersection improvements.
Discussion
Right -of -Way Associates, incorporated (RWA) has been hired to conduct the appraisals and
acquire the properties for the project. In order to proceed with the acquisition process, RWA
needs authorization from the City.
The right-of-way and easements are necessary to allow the construction of the signals and
associated intersection improvements at the intersections of Lakeview & Bryant and Upper Drive
& Bryant Road. Attached is a list of properties along with estimated values.
Alternatives
The alternatives are:
1) Adopt Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager acquire right-of-way and/or
easements for the construction of the phase one Bryant Road improvements per the
Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, April.
2) Do not adopt Resolution 01-83 , authorizing the City Manager to acquire right-of-way
and/or easements for the construction of the phase one Bryant Road improvements per the
Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, April.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution 01-83, authorizing the City Manager to
acquire right-of-way and/or easements for the construction of the phase one Bryant Road
improvements per the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Stu(ly, April.
Attachment
)MMON_EITOM TkWO Bryant Road Signals -WO 11 40kCOLJN('RPI'R-O-W Acquisnon Template 9.01 Aoc
Resolution 01-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR
EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE BRYANT ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS PER THE BRYANT ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY, APRIL, 2001.
WHEREAS, the need to improve traffic flow and safety on Bryant Road at Upper Drive
and Lakeview Boulevard was identified by the Bryant Road Corridor Study, April, 2001;
and
WHEREAS, the right-of-way and/or easements are needed to allow the construction of
intersection improvements and traffic signals at Bryant Road & Upper Drive, and
Bryant Road & Lakeview Boulevard to ease traffic flow; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego will install and maintain the traffic signals and
intersection improvements on Bryant Road at Upper Drive and Lakeview Boulevard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
now authorizes the City Manager to acquire the easements and/or right-of-way for the
construction of the intersection improvements and traffic signals on Bryant Road at the
intersections with Upper Drive and Lakeview Boulevard for the estimate amount of
$36,539.00.
Considered and enacted at the regular Council meeting of the City of Lake Oswego
held on this 16th day of October, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Judie Hammerstad
Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVEDt�S TO F RM:
avid Powell ��"
City Attorney
Resolution 01-83 Pagel of 1 - % J
4.3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/16/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes from:
1. September 4, 2001, morning meeting
2. September 17, 2001, information session
3. September 18, 2001, morning meeting
4. September 18, 2001, joint meeting with the Historic Resources
Advisory Board
5. September 18, 2001, regular meeting
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:
• September 4, 2001,
morning meeting
• September 17, 2001,
information session
• September 18, 2001,
morning meeting
• September 18, 2001, joint
meeting with the Historic
Resources Advisory Board
• September 18, 2001,
reqular meetinq
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
— S,4�v
CITY M AGER
Cf D/
slgnoff/date
\\FINANCI,,'\I)z\ I'A\INFOSVC\Robyn\repo►•t, niinutes.doc
Public Affairs Department
TO: Judie Hamn►erstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Correction to Minutes
DATE: October 16, 2001
C: Ihiulla..I. tichmitc, I)a�id 1'u��cl)
Minutes
The following corrections have been made to the minutes on the consent agenda for the
October 16, 2001 Council meeting. Please make the motion to approve minutes as corrected.
Date of Minutes
Page
Correction
September 18, 2001, morning
5 of 12
3 paragraph, change from "to see if it carried"
meeting
(63 in
to "to see the amount by which it carried"
packet)
September 18, 2001, special
1 of 4
3. change from "Historic Review Advisory
meeting
(73 in
Board" to "Historic Resources Advisory Board"
packet)
September 18, 2001, regular
13 of 15
8.2.1 change from "purpose of the Consortium"
meeting
(91 in
to "purpose of the proposed Consortium"
packet)
\\FINANCE\DATA\1NFOSVC\Robyn\tnin rncmo.doc
4.3.1
10/10/01
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001
MORNING MEETING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
:4
September 4, 2001
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. on
September 4, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, McPeak, Rohde (arrived 7:38 a.m.),
Turchi and Graham. Councilor Schoen was excused.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Les Youngbar, Director of Public Safety; Kathi Alford, LOCOM
Communications Manager; Helen Bicart, Police Chief
3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the Executive Session this evening at 5 p.m. for the mediation
with Field Turf, with discussion and decision.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that Councilor Hoffman would present the Council goals update
and Councilor Turchi would review the consent agenda.
Councilor McPeak asked if Consent Agenda Item 5.3.3 was not subject to public discussion.
Mayor Hammerstad agreed with pulling the item. She pointed out that the chart on page 53 was
unclear. She asked staff for information on how the new market adjusted plan related to the
current salaries. Councilor McPeak asked staff to make it clear tonight what collapsing the
number of pay ranges and starting people at the next level meant.
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, distributed the information on the unfilled positions to the
Councilors who had not yet received it.
Councilor Graham asked if the memo of understanding for speed bumps on Knaus Road would
set a precedent for future speed bumps. Mr. Schmitz explained that the memo was necessary
only for County roads lying within the City's jurisdiction. He noted that the County was not
involved in First Addition at all.
Councilor Rohde arrived.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that staff did not anticipate any problems with the
private residents with respect the Palisades Terrace Sanitary Sewage Lift (Item 5.2.1).
Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Councilor Graham that the $10,000 grant for the pedestal installation
(Item 5.3.2) would reduce the City's obligation of $25,000. He mentioned the two components
of the disposition of last year's proceeds: a stipend to the artists and the pedestals.
Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Councilor Graham that the intergovernmental agreement between
police departments (Item 5.3.5) had no cost involved to the City.
• Item 5.1.1, Speed bumps on Knaus Road
Councilor Hoffman asked for clarification on which properties were within the city and which
were in the county (Item 5.1.1). Mr. Schmitz indicated that the ruling factor was not whether
the properties were in the city limits; it was who had jurisdiction over the road. He explained
that, when the City went through the usual process of transferring jurisdiction as part of an
annexation, it tried to get money for maintenance for some period of time. Ile said that, in this
case, they could not reach agreement because the County had no money to transfer with the road
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14
September 4, 2001 31
for maintenance; therefore, they left the road under County jurisdiction, even though it was
located in the city.
Councilor Hoffman indicated that he was having difficulty with this item now that he realized
that it most benefited people who were not in the city. He pointed out that only six or seven lots
lay within the city limits.
Councilor Turchl described the situation as the properties on both sides of Knaus Road from
Boones Ferry to Alto Park were in the County; the City was planning to put a speed bump on a
county road to benefit those who lived in the county. Mr. Schmitz clarified that the properties
near the eastern -most speed bump, whose owners were the primary initiators of the request, were
city residents.
Ms. Heisler reviewed which lots were in the city and which were in the county based on an
updated map.
Councilor Hoffman asked to pull this item from the consent agenda, citing his philosophic
concerns of consistency with the use of city services. Mayor Hammerstad asked staff to notify
the requestor that the Council was pulling the item.
Councilor Hoffman asked if there was a mechanism for transferring ownership of the county
roads, in which the City owned and operated underground utilities (page 37). Mr. Schmitz said
yes, noting that the County has been trying for years to get the City to take jurisdiction. He
indicated that the disadvantage was that some of the roads were in terrible shape and the City
received no money to bring them up to city standards. He observed that the benefit was that the
City had jurisdiction and did not have to go through the County when it wanted to do something
with the road.
Councilor Hoffman asked if obtaining jurisdiction would help create islands. David Powell,
City Attorney, clarified that only annexation could create islands. He said that jurisdiction over
the road for maintenance was separate from annexation. He confirmed that the City annexed in
roads once the County transferred ownership. He explained that case law in Oregon allowed
cherry stem annexations if they were `reasonable,' which was a term open to interpretation. He
remarked that, in theory, the City could annex the road only, and not the adjacent property, but
someone could challenge that action.
Councilor Hoffman asked for a philosophical discussion of the concept of County roads within
the city limits. He mentioned possibly deciding to take everything that belonged to the City,
even if there was no money, and then telling the citizens in the county living on roads within City
jurisdiction that the City intended to start incorporating the area, as it needed help in taking care
of its own urban area. He indicated that he was not certain that he liked having a poor road
within the city limits and saying that it was a County problem.
Councilor Hoffman mentioned additional issues of what the concepts of annexation and of
taking over the jurisdiction meant, and how did the City obtain money to bring the roads up to
standard.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she would schedule a discussion for a study session.
Mr. Powell mentioned that he might ask the Council to pull this item tonight for outstanding
issues if this morning the County engineering staff person, who has been administering this item
and just returned from vacation, did not agree with the language changes Mr. Powell requested,
and with which the County Counsel already agreed.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, indicated to Councilor Rohde that staff has
sent out the letters for Country Club Road; Sid received a call last Wednesday asking for more
information. Councilor McPeak observed that the letter date of August 22 was very recent.
Councilor Graham asked about the advisory board mentioned in Item 5.3.4 (page 59). Mr.
Powell explained that Captain Galloway usually asked for a staff -appointed committee to review
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14
September 4, 2001
3�
the block grant proposal. He recommended that the Council pull this item from the agenda to
allow public comment on it. He mentioned that there usually was not any comment. Les
Youngbar, Director of Public Safety, indicated that the department has received comment from
people in the community.
Kathi Alford, LOCOM Communications Manager, indicated to Councilor McPeak that the
department currently had 27 laptops. She mentioned their hope to obtain sufficient computers to
assign them personally to officers as opposed to simply keeping them in the cars. Mr.
Youngbar clarified that the department needed a total of 48 laptops for its 43 officers and 5
Community Service Officers. Helen Bicart, Police Chief, mentioned obtaining two additional
computers for spares.
Mayor Hammerstad discussed Item 8. 1, the public hearing on the sensitive lands protection.
She held that the Council still had a problem of not knowing what the criteria were that were
used in the ESEE. She stated that she could not justify the request because she had no idea how
the criteria were applied. She asked for a staff person who could justify it. She indicated that
she wanted to see the ESEE criteria.
• Item 8.3, Proposal to vacate portions of Tenth Street
Mr. Powell noted that Mr. Chevrette's cover memo discussed greater partitioning possibilities
with the 10" Street vacation than Mr. Powell's month-old memo did. He explained that the City
surveyor found that the actual feet and inches on the ground did open up more partitioning
possibilities. He pointed out the implication in Mr. Chevrette's memo that the property owners
could not take advantage of that without tearing down the existing houses, which did not seem to
be a motivation for them.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the property owner partitioning his property as a result of
the Chandler Road vacation was going through the City's expedited process, which eliminated
the City's ability to protect the tree groves on that property. She argued that the Council could
protect the groves through the unexpedited process, which would reduce the building envelope
on the property. She pointed out that the 42,000 square foot property could potentially subdivide
into four lots. She contended that, with the expedited process, the Council had no way to protect
the neighborhood.
Mr. Powell clarified to Councilor Rohde that the expedited process did not exempt the
development application from the City tree ordinance; it sent it to a hearings officer instead of to
the Council. Mayor Hammerstad argued that the Council would be more inclined to protect
resources of value, even those not on the sensitive lands list. Councilor Rohde cited the
property on Lake Shore Blvd. as an "example" of how the City tree ordinance saved trees on
property over which the City had no control.
Councilor McPeak said that, while she was concerned about the trees, she felt comfortable that
staff and the conservation overlays would protect the resources. She discussed her discomfort
with the City retaining excess right-of-way simply to inhibit property owners' disposition of their
land in accordance with the City codes. She spoke in support of using the City's established
processes.
Mayor Hammerstad held that if the neighbors had been aware of what was going on with the
Chandler Road property, then the Council would have had different information and done the
vacation differently. She argued that the City could have drawn the centerline of the vacation
differently to avoid giving one property a much larger portion than the property across the street.
She concurred with Councilor McPeak that, in this situation, they had no choice but to give the
bulk of the right-of-way back to the smaller lot.
Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the neighbors were notified for a street
vacation.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
Page 3 of 14
Councilor Hoffman observed that the land that the City was giving back to the adjacent
property owners already belonged to them; the City simply had a transportation easement, which
it did not need anymore. He mentioned the underlying concept in public/private property issues
that if the public did not need the property anymore, then it went back to the owner. He
suggested that Mr. Powell explain that in more detail tonight.
Councilor Graham referenced a sentence on page 206 that spoke to retaining right-of-way
sufficient to allow lane widening and a pathway. Mr. Schmitz indicated that the City had
nothing in its plan for widening the road or installing a pathway, although sufficient right-of-way
would remain after the vacation for a pathway. He pointed out that the City having the right-of-
way did not mean that it would not run into opposition, citing the Old River Road pathway.
Mr. Powell mentioned that staff wanted Council consensus on whether to proceed with sending
out the surveyor to finalize the legal description. He said that staff would return with the final
ordinance once they obtained an exact description.
Councilor Turchi pointed out that the lot on the corner with all the fir trees had the potential to
subdivide into four lots. He described it as a unique property that functioned as the gateway to
the neighborhood. He commented that, although he understood the philosophical underpinnings
and legal justification of the action, he was not excited about voting for something that gave the
green light to a potential subdivision that would significantly change the character of the
neighborhood.
Councilor Turchi distributed copies of four different models for a Youth Council. He said that
he and Councilor Hoffman would meet to review them and then present them at the Council
meeting next week.
Mayor Hammerstad recalled the Council approval of adding two more citizens to the Foothills
Task Force. She recommended appointing Lynn Peterson from First Addition. She mentioned
that Councilor Rohde gave her another name from a neighborhood association in the downtown
area but she has not yet followed up on it. She explained that she wanted to add the approval of
Ms. Peterson to tonight's agenda because the meeting was next Monday.
Mayor Hammerstad advised the Council that she intended to invite Rob Fallow, a downtown
businessperson with a number of ideas about the Foothills project, to attend the meetings if he
wanted to. She noted that he would not do so as an appointed Task Force member because the
Council did not approve the addition of another business representative on the Task Force. She
mentioned that the Task Force would meet the second Monday of the month from 10:30 a.m. to
12:30 p.m.
• item 9.2,Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and
intergovernmental Committees
Councilor Rohde explained that TPAC, the Technical Policy Advisory Committee, was the staff
committee for the elected officials committee of JPACT. He said that TPAC considered the
Metro staff recommendations on transportation. He advised the Council that the Metro staff cut
the Boones Ferry Road project from the 100% of available federal funds list and reduced the
Willamette Shore Rail Line feasibility study from $550,000 to $300,000.
Councilor Rohde said that the Metro staff recommended dropping the Boones Ferry project
because of a significantly lower technical score and an incomplete design process as well as the
need to maintain geographical equity. He mentioned that Metro staff recommended the
reduction in the Willamette Shore study for reasons of geographic equity as well.
Councilor Rohde explained that the original $550,000 amount was insufficient for both the
feasibility study and the preliminary engineering. He noted that the $300,000 was sufficient for
the feasibility study and would get Lake Oswego's foot in the door for regional funding for the
project. He commented that, having made it through TPAC, the Willamette Shore project should
make it through JPACT also.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14
September 4, 2001 f
Councilor Rohde discussed the new step that Metro added to this process: the Community
Planning Committee (Metro Council) would review the recommendations for transportation
projects and hold a public hearing. He said that the public hearing was scheduled for this
evening. He suggested that the Council prepare testimony in support of the Willamette Shore
project and on the cut of the Boones Ferry project; staff could submit it. He reiterated that he did
not think that any one would attack their project because the Metro Council already described it
as a good project.
Councilor Rohde recalled that the City swapped out the A Avenue project with the Boones
Ferry project (when it lost out on the last round of funding), and found a way to do the A Avenue
project itself. He observed that doing so set up the attitude that if Lake Oswego diel not get
federal funding, then it would find the money to do it anyway.
Councilor Rohde reiterated that he thought that the $300,000 was sufficient for what the City
needed to do, and it set the Willamette Shore project up as a project of regional significance,
worthy of federal funding.
Councilor Rohde indicated to Councilor McPeak that the geographical equity argument was
probably reasonable (although arguable), given the number of projects shared by the three
counties in addition to their individual projects. He observed that it has always appeared that
Washington County had the lion's share of funding; while that was true, Washington County also
had a bigger load.
Councilor Rohde mentioned that the big debate tonight would be over fully funding the
Springwater Corridor bike path or fully funding the Nyberg Road interchange; fully funding one
project cut the funding of the other project in half. He said that TPAC recommended fully
funding the Nyberg Road interchange but he would try to reverse that decision because the
Nyberg Road project was eligible for the HB 2142 state bonding program and could get half their
funds from the state.
Councilor Turchi said that he had a report on the Green Ribbon Committee. He mentioned that
Bob Kincaid would attend their meetings, as they scheduled them for Tuesday night. He
reviewed the background of the Green Ribbon Committee at Councilor McPeak's request.
4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilor McPeak asked if the presentation on broadband and DSL (added to the September 18
agenda) included a vote on the extension agreement. Mayor Hammerstad said that the intent
was an information session with the vote coming later, after the City had the opportunity to
disseminate the information.
Councilor McPeak asked for confirmation that the Council would not attend the September 20
meeting of the Mayor and Mr. Schmitz with the Board and Commission chairs. Mayor
Hammerstad reviewed the discussion items that she and Mr. Schmitz intended to raise at that
meeting, including term limits and the appointment process.
There was a tape malfunction for approximately 15 minutes.
Councilor McPeak noted the October 1 I Budget Committee interviews. Mayor Hammerstad
spoke to re -appointing the current members who applied. She asked for discussion of the issue.
Councilor McPeak concurred with the Mayor.
Councilor Graham argued that the Council owed the respect of an interview to the 11 people
who have applied for the Budget Committee. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the time it would
take to conduct the interviews.
Mr. Schmitz suggested moving forward with the process outlined by the Mayor to reappoint the
three sitting Committee members and to send a carefully worded letter to the applicants
explaining the situation. Councilor Rohde concurred.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14
September 4, 2001
35
Councilor Hoffman discussed his concern with setting a precedent. He asked to see all l 1
applications. Mayor Hammerstad suggested postponing the discussion until next Tuesday.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned a Lake Oswego School District meeting on Wednesday, October 24.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the Eagle Creek tour and sending e-mail to those interested in
order to coordinate the tour.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the October 13 dinner.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Request to create an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force
Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resources Coordinator, presented the draft charge statement for
the task force.
Councilor Turchi asked if staff received any feedback when people applied for permits. Ms.
Hamerlynck indicated that people have written letters.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor McPeak that there were customer service questionnaire
cards at the counters.
Mayor Hammerstad recalled her comments made while running for office.
Councilor Turchi spoke to soliciting comments from those who applied for permits.
Councilor Rohde discussed how to appoint the four at -large representatives.
Councilor Hoffman commented that including representatives of industries would guarantee
diverse perspectives.
The tape recording of the meeting resumed at this point.
Councilor Rohde spoke of builders required to reconsider their building envelope in order to
preserve a 100 -year-old Douglas fir. He indicated that one of his biggest concerns was that they
were playing to the outcry of the moment.
Councilor McPeak observed that this was a difficult issue for the task force to address. She
indicated that she hoped that the Task Force would present the Council with actual case histories
of the application of the tree ordinance in specific instances, including why a permit was or was
not granted and what the applicants thought of the process. She commented that her problem
was knowing whether to move the line back somewhat; therefore, she would like to get
background information on what has gone on before.
Councilor Turchi noted the 400 applications, the 500 trees cut and the two trees prevented from
being cut. Ile commented that staff should be able to do some statistical tabulation. Councilor
McPeak asked staff to do statistical tabulations on the case studies and an analysis of what that
meant. Councilor Turchi asked staff to list the most prevalent reasons for denying the cutting
of a tree.
Councilor McPeak recalled that she had been surprised during the meeting with the Natural
Resources Advisory Board to learn that the ordinance allowed people to cut down large trees for
$100 a tree. Councilor Rohde wondered how to get feedback from the neighbors who lived
down the street from an applicant for a tree -cutting permit.
Councilor Hoffman suggested that staff select 100 names from the database of those who
applied for a permit and 100 name from the database of those whom the City notified of an
application, and send out a survey to them. fie held that this process would garner input from the
applicant who felt that his right to cut down a tree on his own property was infringed upon, and
from the neighbors impacted by the tree removal. fie mentioned the argument that if the Council
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14
September 4, 2001
36
merely tweaked the ordinance and weathered this storm, then people would get used to
restrictions on their private property.
Councilor Graham mentioned her concern that neighbors several doors down from the tree
cutting might not have said anything. She asked if it would be beneficial to send letters to the
neighborhood association chairs, asking them to talk to the neighbors.
Mayor Hammerstad instructed staff to state in the press release soliciting applications that the
Council wanted citizens with a diversity of viewpoints. She suggested informing LONAC at
their next meeting that this was coming up.
Councilor Hoffman asked for the flexibility to add more citizen -at -large representatives,
expanding the number from 4 to 6. He spoke in support of a balance on the task force. He
suggested allowing the task force to take public testimony at a public hearing.
Councilor Graham suggested not limiting to six the number of times that the task force would
meet. Mayor Hammerstad suggested setting the charge for six months.
Councilor Rohde moved to approve the charge statement for the task force with the
revisions of a public hearing, 4 to 6 citizens -at -large and a charge for six months.
Councilor Turchi seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with
Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, McPeak, Rohde, Turchi and Graham voting in
favor. 16-01
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she would announce this task force this evening.
5.2 Updating Eagle Creek Testimony
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned receiving a request that the Council update its testimony since
taking a flyover of the Eagle Creek cut. She said that she read the testimony and thought that it
sounded fine. She mentioned the letter the City received from the Forest Service informing the
Council that its additional study on blow down did not find the situation that serious, a finding
with which the opponents disagreed. She commented that the Council testimony addressed other
issues also, including following the process for cuts.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she preferred to wait on discussing the matter until after the
field trip. Councilor Graham concurred. Mayor Hammerstad said that they would discuss it
on Tuesday, September 18.
5.3 Issues and Options Related to Impacts of House Bill 3977, Consolidated
Communication Centers
Kathi Alford, LOCOM Communications .Manager, presented the staff report on the potential
impacts of 1113 3977 on Lake Oswego's local dispatch services. She reviewed the history of the
bill, noting that it started out as HB 2098, a straight bill intended to extend the 9-1-1 tax as it
existed. She mentioned the three questions that the Issues and Options paper focused on: what
was the optimal number of PSAPs in the County or in the State, how to fiord State police
equipment not located in 9-1-1 centers, and how to develop redundancy in backup within some
of the larger and existing 9-1-1 centers.
Ms. Alford said that the consultant found that local agencies should determine the optimal
number of calls, as the largest percentage of the call load for the dispatch centers was funded
locally. She noted that the consultant report spoke of the State Police funding its equipment from
internal sources. She indicated that the consultants spoke of developing a redundancy in backup
within some of the larger, existing 9-1-1 centers.
Ms. Alford indicated that HB 3977 resulted in a total rewrite and funding the $1.7 million out of
the state 9-1- l tax. She said that the State required all 9-1-1 centers to file a report by September
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14
September 4, 2001 37
2002, explaining how they could consolidate into one center for each county. She noted that the
requirements did not include the redundancy recommendations by the consultant.
Ms. Alford reported that the consultant evaluated Lake Oswego's report, and found that Lake
Oswego was one of the few 9-1-1 answering points that could answer the question "Can you
provide better services and cost savings within your primary answering point versus
consolidation?". She reviewed the consultant's evaluation and recommendations.
Ms. Alford stated that the issue was better service and cost savings. She explained that what
complicated the issue was the factors beyond the question of where did the 9-1-1 call go, such as
the broader range of local dispatch services, which included more than police and medical 9-1-1
calls. She said that the consolidated environment did not handle ordinance enforcement,
Community Service Officer dispatching, animal control or parking. She mentioned that
sometimes jurisdictions had to contract out their warrant confirmation and city facility
monitoring.
Ms. Alford noted that LOCOM currently took about 100,000 calls for service a year, 80% of
which were non -emergency and came in on an alternate line to the 9-1-1 line.
Ms. Alford discussed her concern about the lack of backup the community would have if
LOCOM went into a consolidated center. She pointed out that the consolidated services in
Washington County lost their center three times in two years and had no back-up. She explained
that Clackamas County was one of the few counties where back up was available at the flip of a
switch. She recounted two instances in which LOCOM served as back up to Clackamas County
for dispatching and/or answering 9-1-1 calls.
Ms. Alford discussed the degradation in the service levet inherent in a consolidated center, no
matter who ran it, because they did not provide the range of local dispatch services. She noted
that Lake Oswego would face limited control of performance standards. She indicated that one
consolidated center believed that it solved its problem of the number of 9-1-1 calls going into a
queue (with answering machines picking them up) by setting the ringers to ring more times
before sending the call into the queue. She commented that she did not think that that was an
adequate solution to the problem.
Ms. Alford discussed Lake Oswego's unique situation in having portions of all three counties
within its service area for dispatch services, which made it difficult if the consolidated center
wanted to direct 9-1-1 calls to the particular county service area. Lake Oswego could have calls
going to all three county service centers.
Ms. Alford discussed the fiscal impact of LOCOM losing 20% of its revenue collectively. She
recalled that Clackamas County was the first in the state to use ORS 190 to reach an
intergovernmental agreement; the agencies agreed to front the money for the centers before the 9-
1-1 tax revenues were available, and to seek reimbursement from the tax. She asked for Council
direction on how to proceed.
Ms. Alford confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the State passed the 9-1-1 tax through on phone
bills.
Councilor Rohde asked if this consolidation effort was an attempt to make up the $1.7 million
allocated to the State police. Ms. Alford explained that there were two different issues. She said
that one issue was the allocation of the money to offset what would have been general fund
expenditures for the state police.
Ms. Alford discussed the second issue testified to by the Oregon Emergency Management Office
at the State legislature: consolidation has already occurred in the state, and what was left to
consolidate would not be significant in terms of cost savings. She explained that, with most of
the equipment in the existing centers sized according to population, consolidation would simply
bring those positions into one center but it would not eliminate the positions.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14
September 4, 2001
38
Councilor Rohde asked what were the politics of this matter. Mayor Hammerstad
characterized it as a `turf battle,' noting that the County has been lobbying For consolidation at
the County center for years. She noted that it was not advisable for some counties, such as the
long, skinny Lincoln County, to consolidate into one center. She spoke to Clackamas County
consolidating into two centers, which would provide redundancy, as it was ridiculous for a
county like Clackamas County to have four centers.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that Milwaukie built its public safety building to accommodate
a central CCDM. She observed that many fire service districts were at odds with Clackamas
County's CCOM; the other COMs were more than willing to step in and fill the void by
providing dispatch services to the unhappy districts.
Mayor Hammerstad discussed the issue of which two facilities would house the consolidated
services, should they consolidate from the four to two. She indicated that CCOM at the County
was a logical choice, as it was the largest. She held that Gladstone did not make much sense,
which left the choice for the second facility between Lake Oswego and Milwaukie. She
commented that Lake Oswego might be logical because it was located on the west side of the
river.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned her perception that the new City Manager in Milwaukie was
more agreeable to consolidating the Milwaukie piece into Lake Oswego and Clackamas County
than anyone else they might have to work with. She conjectured that they were in a good
situation for accomplishing the consolidation with centers in Lake Oswego and at Clackamas
County, a situation that would still provide back up.
Ms. Alford recalled LOCOM's presentation to the Milwaukie City Council a couple of years ago
(at Milwaukie's request) of a plan to consolidate Milwaukie and Lake Oswego; the idea was
dropped as a result of Milwaukee's new facility. She said that Milwaukie was still very
interested in consolidating. She noted that Gladstone understood the probability of consolidation
as well but preferred coming together with Milwaukie and Lake Oswego to create a city level of
service, rather than going with the County.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the known difficulties at Clackamas CCOM, including
understaffing and significant overtime. She commented that, if Lake Oswego provided the back
up, it would be an opportunity to work towards a more efficient method of providing service.
Ms. Alford mentioned that one of the discussion issues during HB 3977 was that it was the
State's responsibility to set and enforce the 9-1-1 standards. She noted that the Lake Oswego
evaluation found that LOCOM met or exceeded those standards.
Ms. Alford confirmed to Councilor Turehi that LOCOM was not located in an earthquake
proof building. She observed that one of the advantages of Milwaukie's new building was that it
did meet seismic standards and was a better facility for housing the center.
Ms. Alford indicated to Councilor Turehi that LOCOM did not shunt 9-1-1 calls off to an
answering machine, as Portland and Washington County did, because it did not use answering
machines. She said that she was not certain whether Clackamas County used answering
machines. She mentioned that Portland used a queue about 14% of the time. She described Lake
Oswego's method of handling calls about power outages, in which the dispatch operator
answered the call and shifted it to a `quick message' line upon learning that the call was about
the power outage.
Mr. Youngbar discussed the issue of the functions that LOCOM provided beyond dispatching
calls, such as checking for information and running licenses. He conceded that, with the data
computers in the field, officers could access some of that information without going through the
dispatcher; however, sonic things the officers had to do through a dispatcher for verification. Ile
emphasized that there was a significant difference in the level of service that police and fire
received from a consolidated center in terms of the `street stuff.'
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14
September 4, 2001 3 � J
At Councilor Turchi's request, Ms. Alford described the dispatch process from receipt of the
call to dispatch of police or fire. She mentioned that LOCOM had a 55 second average on
emergency police and fire calls from when the phone rang to unit dispatch.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested that staff explore, with the other centers, how to consolidate,
possibly under ORS 190. She mentioned issues of not having many 9-1-1 pass through dollars
and not decreasing the level of service. She summarized the Council direction as staff should
start meeting with the appropriate people in order to meet the timelines.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that Lake Oswego wanted to keep its own dispatch center. She
spoke to discussing who could provide the best service at the lowest cost in the safest facility.
She conceded that that might result in Lake Oswego losing its facility and sending its people
over to Milwaukie.
Ms. Alford pointed out that one of the advantages of creating an ORS 190 agency was bringing
the dispatchers together collectively. She said that she did not think that the Milwaukie, Lake
Oswego and Gladstone managers or employees would have any difficulty working together, as
they trained together.
Councilor Rohde mentioned the philosophical issue of Lake Oswego wanting a higher level of
service than what the money collected from the 9-1-1 tax could reasonably pay for. Ms. Alford
mentioned that the distribution method of the 9-1-1 tax money subsidized the rural counties. She
noted that Lake Oswego did not get a share of the 9-1-1 taxes appropriate to the number of phone
lines accessing its 9-1-1 center.
Ms. Alford explained that the urban counties subsidizing the rural counties happened because
the statewide program has been trying to get the rural counties up and running with the enhanced
9-1-1 service, which was completed last year. She mentioned that there was talk about
reallocating the formula now that those systems were in place.
Ms. Alford indicated to Councilor Rohde that 19.5% of LOCOM was funded by the pass
through dollars.
Mayor Hammerstad asked if consolidating and moving LOCOM employees to Milwaukie
would help Lake Oswego's budget. Mr. Schmitz indicated that he did not think so. Ms. Alford
mentioned having another room in City Hall available and more parking.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she thought the arguments for taking dispatch services out
of Lake Oswego or for providing that service itself were the same as those for water. She
questioned whether Lake Oswego cared where the service was physically located if it provided
Lake Oswego with high quality service at the lowest cost possible and with the greatest
efficiency. Councilor Rohde indicated that it did matter.
Ms. Alford recounted how West Linn came to Lake Oswego for provisions of dispatch services,
instead of to the County, when it realized that it could no longer provide them.
Mr. Youngbar spoke to shooting for the best and safest center possible, even if it were located
outside of Lake Oswego. 1 le emphasized that they did not want to lose the level of service that
Lake Oswego now had.
Mayor Hammerstad summarized the Council's direction to the staff as meeting the goals of
customer service, safety, efficiency and cost savings. She asked staff to keep the Council
updated on their progress. She observed that no one dialing 9-1-1 knew or cared where the
center was located as long as he/she got service. She stated the Council's goal of keeping the
response time as low as possible while getting the best service it could.
Councilor Rohde asked what the political likelihood was of getting two PSAPs. Ms. Alford
recalled her conversation with a State 9-1-1 Office representative who told her that Lake Oswego
was one of two agencies in the state that he expected to get an exception. She cited the
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14
September 4, 2001 40
consultant's evaluation finding that Lake Oswego provided better, cost efficient service. She
indicated that Lane County was likely to get an exception because of its geography.
Ms. Alford suggested that Lake Oswego cite the study it did on how to consolidate 9-1-1
PSAPs, which found that it would cost more money because of building a new facility, propose
an option of two existing facilities for back-up, and request an exception.
Councilor Rohde recalled the discussion of merging Lake Oswego, Oregon City and West Linn
fire districts. He mentioned that Lake Oswego had had a different expectation of fire service
than the other two cities were willing to pay for, which ended those discussions. Fie asked if
there was a similar problem here.
Ms. Alford indicated to Councilor Graham that Milwaukie dispatched police within the city
limits only; it did not dispatch fire or medical. She pointed out that when calculating the cost
factors, they needed to cost them out on the police and fire sides and do percentages, so that
agencies would only pay for the services it provided.
Ms. Alford indicated to Councilor Graham that Lake Oswego had better technology than
Milwaukie, which might mean moving Lake Oswego's equipment to Milwaukie.
Ms. Alford asked if the Council direction was for Option 4, creating a single ORS 190 umbrella
organization, or for whatever worked. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Council wanted
whatever worked without losing service.
Ms. Alford informed the Council that staff would begin meeting this month with other
answering points within the county, although Clackamas County might try dictating that all the
agencies come to the County center. She reiterated that they had one year to complete the study
and submit a consolidation proposal; if the agencies did not do it collectively, then the state
would do it for them. Councilor Rohde observed that any change could be four years out.
5.4 Street Utility
Mr. Schmitz reviewed the developments in the region with respect to a street utility fee that
have occurred since the Council adopted the goal in February. He mentioned the referendum in
Portland and the 1 I% increase in property taxes in Lake Oswego due to the school bond.
Councilor McPeak observed that it appeared that delaying the Council discussion of the issue
until next year would enhance their chances of obtaining this source of permanent funding.
Councilor Graham concurred with waiting until after the new year in order to get a sense of the
public's reaction to the property tax increase. She commented that if the public refused to pay
more taxes, then the City would have to come up with something creative.
Councilor Rohde spoke to continuing the education of the public, even if the implementation
decision did not occur until after the first of the year. He held that it would take four months
anyway to put together the task force and garner public comment. He commented that he has
learned never to underestimate the Lake Oswego voters and their willingness to pay for things
that they understood were valuable, such as the school bond measure or the street bond measure.
He argued that they did a disservice to the voters if they did not check with them simply because
the Portland fee was likely to go down in flames.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke in support of appointing a large Street Maintenance Funding Task
Force to look at the options this fall (with a report to the Council in January), as part of garnering
a sense of what the community felt that the City needed. She observed that one problem was that
Lake Oswego roads were in relatively good shape and people did not perceive a need at this time.
She held that part of the education process was helping the public to understand that it cost less
to maintain the roads than it did to repair them.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that the trade off was that the Council could fully fund
maintenance if it significantly reduced its capital funding programs (excluding the SDCs); the
question was whether their citizens wanted that tradeoff. i le reiterated that appointing the task
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14
September 4, 2001 4 1
force with a report deadline in January would be enough time to implement the educational
process and assess people's reaction to the concept. Councilor McPeak characterized that as a
reasonable position.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor McPeak that the Council would need tin answer to this
question by a year from now.
Councilor Hoffman spoke in support of creating the task force and having them develop the
community operation program. He held that it was one thing to do the issues and another to do
the educational element. He concurred with Councilor Rohde that if the Council was correct,
then it should be able to convince the community that the City needed the fee.
The Council discussed the composition and work of the task force. Councilor McPeak spoke
in support of an open discussion about the options, as opposed to an education about street utility
fees. Mayor Hammerstad said that she wanted to give a group of citizens tiie option and the
need, and then see what they came up with.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to using a citizen panel of randomly chosen citizens as opposed to
an appointed task force. She suggested selecting a couple of people from each voting precinct
and simply asking them what they thought of the information presented, somewhat similar to a
focus group. Councilor Rohde supported using a citizen panel.
Councilor Hoffman pointed out that the people randomly selected might not be very interested
in looking at the issue. Councilor McPeak held that many citizens would like to get a call from
the Mayor inviting them to a discussion. Mayor Hammerstad observed that those who were
not interested would probably decline immediately.
Mayor Hammerstad stated that this was not an advocacy group. She clarified that her intent
was to see if they could take a normal group of uninvolved people, have them look at the
problem and the options, have them reach a solution and then present a recommendation to the
Council. She observed that people on the task force might become advocates later, which was
fine.
Councilor Hoffman defined a task force as an ad hoc committee that worked together on a task.
He asked what the task of the task force was. Mayor Hammerstad confirmed that they were
asking people to volunteer to work on a special street maintenance committee. She agreed that
they would need a facilitator.
Councilor Hoffman asked whether there was another model of civic engagement than the one
that the Mayor proposed. Mayor Hammerstad said that this model came out of the Leadership
Institute in Washington, D.C.
Councilor McPeak pointed out that this had the advantage of not using the people who were
always at the Council meetings. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the question was if the
people understood what the need was, then what were they willing to suggest. She remarked that
she doubted it would be unanimous; the task force would more likely submit priorities.
Councilor Hoffman pointed out that the City had to give the citizens unbiased information if it
wanted to obtain an unbiased result. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that she was not looking for
an advocacy group. She said that if the group decided that it did not want the street maintained
or spend the money, then the Council had the responsibility to look at some other way of
addressing the problem.
Councilor Hoffman disagreed that a random sample of 12 people would give insight into what
12,000 voters wanted. Mayor Hammerstad agreed with Councilor Tureld that they needed a
larger sample. Councilor Hoffman compared the task force to a grand jury. Mayor
Hammerstad held that it was not that complicated. Councilor Hoffman argued that it was only
complicated if the result was something that the City did not want. lie conceded that they
needed to trust the process.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14
September 4, 2001 42
Y
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she has not bought into any of the road maintenance
funding options so far presented to the Council. She stated that she was reluctant to tell the
public that the City needed x amount of dollars for road maintenance because she did not see any
of their revenue options as palatable.
Councilor Hoffman discussed his concern with the Council delegating its decision making to
this group. Mayor Hammerstad stated that the Council did not delegate its decisions to its task
forces or ad hoc committees.
Councilor Graham said that the only difference she saw was the selection process. She
commented that the goal appeared to her to be the same as the goals for other task forces. She
remarked that it was worthwhile to try it, using a bigger sample than 20.
Councilor Turchi described a one night process of inviting 100 people, hiring a facilitator,
making a presentation of the information at the beginning, breaking up the large group into small
groups for discussion, and then reforming the large group to reach a consolidated consensus.
Councilor Hoffman observed that that was like a charette. Councilor Graham held that it
would take more than one evening, regardless of how the City set it up.
Councilor McPeak observed that, under any process, the Council would end up making the
decision. She described this process as helping her make a better decision. She said that she
thought that it was healthy for the Council to contact the community over issues. She indicated
that she liked the idea of randomly calling people and asking them to give the City two
weekends, one weekend for presentation of information and another for group work on the best
way to solve the problem.
Councilor McPeak spoke to the City not telling the task force that it would make a decision,
rather they should tell the task force that it would help the Council understand what the citizens
thought. She suggested no more than 100 people with a limit of two to three meetings.
Councilor Rohde held that the advantage of holding two evening meetings was that, following
the first informational meeting, the citizens would mix with the community and talk it over with
people before coming back for the discussion time.
Councilor Turchi pointed out that the Council would be inviting people to review the City
budget and help the Council cut budget in other areas for the purpose of funding street
maintenance. Councilor McPeak observed that that was the nature of the process.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she was hearing a movement towards consensus. She
suggested doing some more work and bringing the process back for Council approval before
announcing it publicly. She indicated to Councilor McPeak that they would work towards
obtaining three people from each of the 18 precincts.
5.5 Library Charge Statement
Mr. Schmitz asked the Council to bring any comments to the meeting tonight. Mayor
Hammerstad said that she liked the charge statement. Councilor Graham asked if staff
intended to put more meat on the bare bones of the five goals. Mr. Schmitz explained that the
intent of the single line was to cite areas of committee review.
Mr. Schmitz explained to Councilor Graham that he left deciding when a decision needed a
vote or general consensus up to the discretion of the chair.
Councilor Graham asked if the City and the District would split the costs of the support staff
for the task force. Mr. Schmitz indicated that Mr. Korach talked about the City doing the
clerical part. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the City was better equipped to do that.
Councilor Rohde mentioned some additions and changes:
• The Record keeping section should say that the minutes shall be reviewed by the committee
and approved
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14
September 4, 2001 ;
• Quorum was not defined
• The Goals section should be changed to read "The goals of the task force are to recommend
whether a joint city/district library facility in Lake Oswego was feasible based on the
following factors..."
Councilor Hoffman mentioned his assumptions that, should the Task Force not recommend a
joint library facility, it would give its reasons, which would lead the community to other library
service options.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Chri ttie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
11}, COL111C11 %lorning Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
Page 14 of 14
M
4.3.2
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2001
INFORMATION SESSION
4 5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 17, 2001
Council President Jack Hoffman called the City Council information session to order at
4:00 p.m. on September 17, 2001, at the Main Fire Station.
Present: Councilors Graham, McPeak, Council President Hoffman, Rohde and Turchi.
Mayor Hammerstad and Councilor Schoen were excused.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Stephan Lashbrook,
Community Development Director
3. INFORMATION SESSION
3.1 Planning Commission recommendation regarding LU 00-0018 (A), alternative
transportation targets and Planning Commission issues regarding LU 00-0015 (A),
local street connectivity
3.1.1 Alternative Transportation Targets
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, noted that `alternative transportation targets'
used to be called `non -single occupant vehicle mode split targets.' She mentioned that Metro
required the City to develop alternative transportation targets in order to meet Metro Functional
Plan Title 6. She explained that Title 6 provided jurisdictions with the mode split targets that
Metro deemed appropriate for the different design type areas throughout the region. She
indicated that; in Title 6, Metro worked towards meeting the Transportation Planning Rule
requirements, one of which was to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Ms. Heisler reviewed the new language staff devised (page 9) to make the item more
understandable, in response to a concern expressed by the previous Council. She noted the
inclusive nature of non -single occupancy vehicle trips, which meant any kind of trip that was
other than a person driving alone in his/her car. She said that the City had 40 years to meet the
alternative trips shared target (last column). She commented that, although Metro reduced the
targets for the Lake Grove Town Center since the previous Council reviewed this matter, the
Planning Commission decided to hold the line at the original figures.
Ms. Heisler reviewed the questions and comments raised by the previous Council. She
mentioned the comment that it was impossible to enforce the rules. She explained that this was a
planning tool for measuring progress that did not require enforcement. The Council would use
the five-year update to decide if it needed to be doing something else or something nlore in the
area of land use/transportation connections in order to reach the targets.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Turchi that the City would probably not lose Metro funding
if it did not move the targets; Metro might make suggestions during the City's periodic review if
the number has not changed in 20 years but the City was not likely to see stronger measures.
Ms. Heisler concurred with Councilor Graham that the City could use this as an argument with
Tri -Met in its attempts to get shuttle service at the Kruse Way employment center.
Ms. Heisler mentioned a second comment from the previous Council: The language was
redundant with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. She explained that although the City had
many Comprehensive Plan policies discussing how to make land use and transportation work
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 9
September 17, 2001
4 ,/,
together, this was a measuring tool that allowed the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of those
efforts and decide if they needed more work.
Council President Hoffman asked how the City would analyze its progress towards these
targets every five years. Ms. Heisler said that staff would rely on Metro to use its four -step
transportation model to help them do that. She clarified that staff could change some of the trip
assignments to reflect changes in housing density and employment as part of determining what
percentage of people were actually walking as opposed to driving.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that she did not know what the progress was oil the
City's 1999 application to Metro for funding for a feasibility study (page 16). Councilor Rohde
explained that it was part of the regional TMA package but no one at the City has taken on the
task of pursuing it.
Ms. Heisler mentioned the City's attempt to work with Tri -Met to obtain a Kruse Way shuttle
bus but Tri -Met had a match requirement of $250,000 for a $1 million project; only a smattering
of business appeared interested.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that staff looked at carpooling by the Kruse Way
office building employees as part of the shuttle project, and were surprised to find where the
employees came from. She mentioned the Zoning Code requirement of transportation
management agreements with new developments setting up a transportation management zone.
She said that Tom Coffee put it together a couple of years ago but she did not know that the City
did any monitoring of those agreements.
Councilor Rohde mentioned the Metro requirement that businesses in the region with 50 or
more employees put together a non -single occupancy vehicle (SOV) plan. He noted that the plan
could vary from Intel's shuttle service between its plant and the MAX station to handing out
glossy flyers once a year.
Councilor McPeak observed that often people would move forward if they were embarrassed to
report that they have done nothing. She suggested discussing the City requiring an annual report
from these businesses, if it was not too expensive to do so.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that few of the Kruse Way businesses had more
than 50 employees at that office.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City made its initial efforts with the
property developer, and not with the individual business occupants.
Ms. Heisler pointed out that the City had transportation management agreements only for the
area north of Kruse Way, as the developments south of Kruse Way fell under the settlement
agreement.
Ms. Heisler confirmed to Council President Hoffman that staff scheduled this item for the
Council's regular October 2 meeting.
3.1.2 Local Street Connectivity
Ms. Heisler referenced the questions raised by the previous Council, outlined starting on page
44. She reiterated that the intent of the Code language was to comply with the Metro Functional
Plan. She explained that the impetus behind connectivity was Metro's belief that providing more
route options would take the pressure off the regional streets and encourage people to get out of
their cars to walk or bike the shorter routes.
Ms. Heisler discussed the previous Council's comment that the recommended changes went too
far (in looking for connectivity opportunities for just about anything); the changes should only
reflect Metro's minimum requirements for application, which were lots five acres in size or
greater or if a street was proposed as part of a development. She noted that Lake Oswego had
only one five -acre lot within the City limits at this time.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 9
September 17, 2001 48
Ms. Heisler referenced the handout showing the changes that staff made to the proposal. She
noted the restriction on applying this only to a development that included a street or to a parcel
five acres or greater. She mentioned the Planning Commission's decision to get rid of the maps.
Ms. Heisler discussed the previous Council's comment that there was no data supporting the
need for connectivity. She mentioned Metro's five studies that found that connectivity did result
in reduced traffic demand, and that there was a healthy market for properties in town centers with
good pedestrian connections to shopping and parks.
Ms. Heisler noted that, especially in Lake Oswego, the instances where connectivity would
apply were very limited. She listed the exceptions that Metro allowed for requiring connectivity.
She observed that, should Lake Oswego ever expand into areas with large amounts of raw land,
then connectivity was something that the City could plan from scratch.
Ms. Heisler observed that residents favored cul-de-sacs because they kept traffic out of
neighborhoods, except in the case of a long cul-de-sac, which forced all traffic out one
entrance/exit. She mentioned the proposal's reduction of the length of a cul-de-sac from the
current Code allowance of 1,000 feet to 200 feet, including all the exceptions. She commented
that the proposal provided for future connectivity but did not make people retrofit when they
came in with a development proposal.
Councilor Rohde asked why staff took out the lot partition. lie argued that the City should take
advantage of an opportunity to put in a pathway in a development large enough to provide that
opportunity. Ms. Heisler mentioned that the previous language gave the threshold as a parcel
that was five times or greater than the minimum lot size required in the zone, which staff thought
would include good-sized parcels with development potential. She indicated that the Council
could look at that as well.
At Councilor McPeak's request, Ms. Heisler reviewed on the sketch how the requirements
would apply. She confirmed to Councilor Graham the exceptions to the requirement for a
through street or pedestrian connections.
Councilor McPeak recalled that her objections to the previous proposal focused on the map
showing the properties impacted by this requirement, which would inhibit the property owner's
options for the use of his/her property.
Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor Graham that the proposal structure right now applied the
requirement to those creating a street or developing a parcel five acres or greater, unless one of
the exceptions listed in Chapter 26.02.05 applied. She noted that if someone could not do a
through street because of an exception, then he/she was supposed to provide a pedestrian
connection. She noted the exceptions to providing a pedestrian access way.
Councilor Rohde asked if this proposal would require a developer to install a pathway over an
informal route established by the neighborhood that ran through the property, such as a shortcut
route to the school site created by the children or to a park. David Powell, City Attorney,
indicated that if the City could establish a nexus and balance under Dolan, then it could require
the pathway. lie mentioned that there might be some trespassing issues involved. Ile confirmed
that the developer would not have to provide the connection unless he/she proposed a street or
developed a five -acre parcel.
Council President Hoffman suggested scheduling a discussion of the philosophic
underpinnings of connectivity, given the three new Council members on the Council, to look at
why Lake Oswego wanted to do this. He noted that the previous Council had a divided vote on
the question.
Councilor McPeak concurred that it would be good to have that discussion but expressed her
hope that the Council would not go too far back towards an expansion of the Metro requirements
that she could no longer support this proposal, which she described as much better than what she
had voted against before.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 9
September 17, 2001 ��
Councilor McPeak asked if the developed path to the Hallinan School at the end of Chapin had
been a voluntary or required pathway when the property subdivided. She observed that that
pathway was exactly the kind of connection they were discussing.
Council President Hoffman indicated that the maps were important to him because they needed
to know what the practical effects of this requirement were. Ms. Heisler referenced the 14 maps
showing the specific sites where staff identified opportunities for connectivity. She explained
that the intent had been to let people developing their property know what to expect. She noted
that the requirement had applied to parcels five times the minimum lot size, even if those parcels
were not on the map.
Ms. Heisler indicated that, under this proposal, the City could require a pathway at the end of a
cul-de-sac, like the one at the end of Chapin, if the development proposed a street that did not go
through. Councilor McPeak observed that a developer could also install a pathway voluntarily.
Councilor Rohde clarified that his concern was not with through streets, given that Lake
Oswego was built out; his concern was about the pathways. He cited Chapin Way as a classic
example of a place where a pathway running from the end of Chapin Way down to Hwy 43
would provide a shorter pedestrian/bike connection than currently existed.
Mr. Powell addressed the question of whether at this time the City could require pathways
through a subdivision that was not over five acres in size. He referenced a development code
requirement of access ways for pedestrians and bicyclists for a subdivision or a planned
development in order to provide the necessary direct routes not otherwise provided for by the
existing right-of-way. He confirmed to Ms. Heisler that that applied whether or not the
developer was creating a street. He reiterated that the City did have to show a nexus under Dolan
to require the pathway or else pay for it itself.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that this requirement would not change under the
new proposal.
Council President Hoffman directed the discussion to answering the question of whether the
Council wanted to move forward with this ordinance or have a broader discussion that included
the previous options.
Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor Graham that the proposal applied to parcels five acres or
greater (even for partitions) or to developments proposing streets (regardless of the number of
acres).
Councilor Turchi asked Ms. Heisler to brief him more thoroughly on this issue at another time.
Council President Hoffman reiterated his support for another discussion of the issues so that
they would understand whatever decision they made. He mentioned that last time, he, Councilor
Rohde and Councilor McPeak had been concerned about getting people off the street using
alternative means.
Councilor Rohde said that lie did not think it was necessary; neither did Councilor Gratia►u.
Councilor Turchi said that lie was willing to go along with the proposal.
Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Rohde that in the case of a subdivision, the City could
require the pathway he discussed, because a subdivision usually had the development impacts
needed under Dolan. He said that he could not give a yes or no on a partition because the
deciding factor was development impact; if the City could show that a partition created the need
or eliminated another opportunity for a connection, then it could require a pathway.
Mr. Powell said that one could make a Dolan argument that eliminating Councilor Rohde's
example of the cut through established by the neighborhood was the impact, which required the
pathway. 1 le commented that usually the development created the need because of the increased
foot traffic. Ile reiterated that a partition was more `iffy' and somewhat unlikely to create a need
fora street. fie mentioned that the City could require a pathway as a condition of approval and
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 9
September 17, 2001 50
pay for it with City funds; otherwise, the City had to meet the Dolan criteria in order to require a
pathway of a developer.
Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Graham that this proposal would apply only to new
applications. She explained that the City had to use the rules that were on the books at the time a
developer submitted his/her application.
The Council agreed to schedule mode split targets for October 2. Ms. Heisler mentioned that
the Planning Commission continued street connectivity, so it would not conic to Council until
October 16. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, said that if the Planning Commission made a
significant change as a result of its discussions with Metro, staff would schedule another Council
work session on street connectivity.
Mr. Schmitz introduced Stephan Lashbrook, the new Community Development Director.
3.2 Appointments to the Budget Committee
Mr. Schmitz mentioned that the Council continued this from the September 4 meeting, as some
members expressed interest in reappointing the three sitting members who have not filled full
terms. Council President Hoffman noted that those interested did receive copies of the
applicant resumes.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that staff was waiting on Council direction before
drafting the letter discussed at the September 4 meeting.
Councilor McPeak spoke in support of reappointing the three sitting members and sending the
straightforward letter to the other applicants explaining the situation. Councilor Graham
described a letter to the other applicants as the best compromise but argued that future Board and
Commission applicants would see this decision as setting a precedent when other vacancies came
up. She reiterated her expectation that the Council would get some flack from this decision,
mentioning the Library Advisory Board in particular.
Councilor Turchi mentioned an option of not reappointing all three sitting members, given the
impressive resumes among the l 1 applications to serve on the Budget Committee. He observed
that it was not a good idea to hold the interviews if the Council has already made up its mind.
Council President Hoffman suggested re -appointing the three sitting members and establishing
a waiting list; the Council would then interview those who wanted to go on the waiting list. He
concurred with Councilor Turchi that the Council could fill vacancies from the waiting list
without opening up the application process.
Councilor Graham recalled that the Council has appointed alternates to Boards. She asked if
the Council went through the interview process to select the alternates or did it keep the
applications on file for a year and interview candidates if someone left.
The Council agreed by consensus to re -appoint the three sitting Budget Committee members,
and to send a letter to the other eight applicants, explaining what the Council has done and why,
and informing them that the Council would contact them if there was an opening in the next 12
months. Council President Hoffman suggested including a line about the Council not wanting
to waste people's time going through the interview process when it already decided to reappoint
the three sitting members.
3.3 Youth Council Program
Councilor Turchi reviewed the four models for a Youth Council that lie provided to the
Council. Ile noted that the first model actively engaged the Youth Councilors while the Youth
Councilors were more passive participants in the second model. He described the third model as
more individualized with City Councilors mentoring the Youth Councilors and developing
individual programs. He discussed the fourth `projects' model in which the Youth Councilors
worked with the Mayor and one City Councilor on a project to accomplish a specific goal.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 5 of 9
September 17, 2001
Councilor Turchi observed that Mayor Hammerstad's memo indicated her interest in Model 4,
pairing the Youth Councilors with the Mayor and one City Councilor to work on a group plan
and individual plans. He mentioned the specifics listed by the Mayor: one year, non-renewable
(starting next year), seven members from each high school, selection by application and
interview, and attendance at 3 meetings or work sessions per month.
Councilor Turchi spoke to opening up the opportunity to be on the Youth Council to Lake
Oswego high school students, regardless of whether they attended a public or private school.
Councilor Rohde said that he liked Model 1, describing it as an excellent program. He
indicated that he did not want to use the observational model they used last year.
Councilor Graham observed that No. 9 in Model 1 was fairly close to the outline in Model 4 for
a plan for student involvement; she liked engaging the students actively. She spoke to the
students earning high school credit for their participation. She conceded that high school credit
put more of a burden on the City Councilors to make sure that the students engaged in
meaningful activity.
Councilor Turchi commented that he did not see why they could not get the students credit for
this activity, since they could earn credit for work experience. Councilor Graham commented
that providing credit might attract the students who were genuinely serious about government.
Councilor Graham discussed her third concern about the guidelines for the City Councilors in
developing programs for the students (Model 1, No. 6). She mentioned having a list of what
requirements the students had to meet in order to receive credit.
Councilor McPeak said that, although she was not against Model 1, she was concerned with the
amount of time that the Council had to devote to the Youth Council program. She discussed not
adding a big load on, given the demands on their time to do a good job as Councilors. She
indicated that, while much of Model 1 was possible, she was concerned that giving credit meant
a greater involvement with her and her Youth Councilor than she wanted.
Councilor McPeak spoke to Model 1 putting more emphasis on the project discussed in Model
4, overseen by the Mayor and one Councilor (as they had one Councilor with more time to
devote to the Youth Council than she had). She held that one meeting a month was the right
number to require Youth Councilors to attend. She questioned asking Youth Councilors for their
opinions on the issues discussed by the Council. Councilor Graham disagreed.
Councilor Rohde discussed the problem with simply sending the packet to the Youth
Councilors without someone sitting down and explaining the context and background of the
issues. He said that when lie sat down with Sinan and went through the packet with him, Sinan
was very interested, once he understood why the issues mattered.
Councilor Graham spoke to having the Youth Councilors attend the morning sessions, which
were often more productive in understanding the issues. Councilor Turchi mentioned a
possibility that requiring attendance at morning meetings might preclude the Youth Councilors
from participating in `zero period classes,' music programs and other activities that occurred
before school. He noted that some of these students were very committed to those programs; the
Council should not discount them as an important part of the students' regular program.
Councilor Rohde argued that it was all right to have the students make those choices. He
recalled that in high school he had to choose which electives he took; he could not fit all the
electives he wanted to take into his schedule. Councilor Graham commented that the students
who were serious about City government would select attending the Council morning meetings.
Councilor Turchl summarized the discussion as allowing for reasonable individual contact
between City Councilor and Youth Councilor but having the Youth Council work together on a
group project as the main focus of a local government seminar, possibly based on their interests
relative to program goals.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 6 of 9
September 17, 2001 5
Councilor Graham reiterated the need for guidelines to address Councilor McPeak's concern
about expectations of the Councilors. Councilor Rohde concurred that it would be valuable to
have guidelines, as he did not want this turning into a full time job either.
Councilor McPeak spoke to providing an opportunity for the City Councilor and Youth
Councilor to get to know each other at the beginning of the year, as opposed to at the end of the
year, as happened last year when she followed her Youth Councilor to her classes
Councilor Graham discussed Councilor McPeak's comment about the students talking about an
issue before the Council took a vote. She described that as part of the youth learning process.
She held that asking them to articulate what they heard and why they reached their conclusion
was part of a meaningful program.
Councilor Turchi said that he would combine Models 1 and 4 and look at the seminar model to
work up a single model for Council review. He indicated to Councilor McPeak that they would
use an application and interview process to select the Youth Councilors.
The Council discussed the selection process. Councilor Rohde mentioned the impact of
opening the opportunity up to students from both public and private high schools, and to home -
schooled students. Councilor Turchi observed that many Lake Oswego high school students
attended private schools. Councilor McPeak suggested assembling a faculty panel from the
high schools to interview the applicants and narrow the pool down to 14 students. Council
President Hoffman asked why the Council could not do it itself.
Councilor Rohde mentioned the need to get the word out quickly. Councilor Turchi
commented that he needed to talk to the principals about giving credit. He indicated to
Councilor Graham that they could invite the private schools to join with the public schools in
giving credit, if they so wished.
Councilor Graham indicated that this needed to be inclusive of all students, including mentally
challenged students.
Councilor Turchi indicated to Council President Hoffman that the model did not preclude
individual projects with an individual Councilor.
Councilor Rohde suggested calling for applications with two letters of recommendation, which
the Council would review and winno„° down to the 14 Youth Councilors.
3.4 Items for tomorrow night
Mr. Schmitz mentioned the two draft resolutions provided to Council in response to the tragedy
last week. He mentioned a diplomatic policy of including some Library Advisory Board
suggestions in the charge statement.
Councilor Rohde suggested finding a way to recognize that the tragedy caused significant loss
to people around the world, and to recognize Lake Oswego's emergency service personnel.
Councilor Graham asked if Council President Hoffman and Councilor Rohde intended to give
their report on sustainability tomorrow night. Councilor Rohde indicated that he did not have
time to put it together before leaving Wednesday morning.
3.5 lnverurie
Council President Hoffman asked for discussion of the situation on a property at the
headwaters of Springbrook Creek, as illustrated by the pictures and e-mail he received. He asked
if it lay within the unincorporated county.
Councilor Turchi indicated that former parents at the school lived on this Rivergrove property
that lay outside the city limits. He said that he talked with Chris Jordan about it; they were trying
to approach it from different angles. He mentioned that Mr. Jordan was having the area checked
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 9
September 17, 2001
to see if fecal material from this property was contaminating the Waluga Park wetland and other
areas.
Council President Hoffman reiterated his philosophy that those who lived in an urban area
should comply with urban rules. Mr. Powell commented that the City could enforce its nuisance
ordinances on property outside the city limits if that property was creating a hazard within the
city.
Councilor Graham indicated to Councilor McPeak that folks Saturday morning told her that
there was a question of the property owner's mental stability. She mentioned a question of
animal abuse also.
Councilor Turchi said that they have talked to Clackamas County, DEQ and the Health
Department about the situation. DEQ said it would leave it to Clackamas County to enforce its
own rules. He mentioned that Rob Bower was considering his suggestion to band with five of
his neighbors and annex to the city, bringing this property along with thein, as the City would
enforce the rules.
Mr. Schmitz asked what the goal was, and could they achieve it more quickly than using the
annexation process. Councilor Turchi said that the goal was to get the 50 or so ducks and geese
to stop relieving themselves in the gray water coming out of the septic system that pooled in the
backyard and drained into the storm water system going into Waluga Park and eventually
creating an algae bloom in Lake Oswego.
Council President Hoffman mentioned a second goal of getting people in unincorporated
Clackamas County into the city.
Councilor Graham said that Chris Roth told her that the County has closed the book on the
situation. Councilor Turchi explained that the County inspection found the situation within the
acceptable parameters for the County. He commented that if this were located in a rural area, it
would be fine.
Councilor Turchi described the issue was that the County residents wanted the services of the
city without being part of the city. He argued that they had a good reason to have City
enforcement of its codes but they did not want to become part of the city to get what they needed.
He restated Councilor Graham's comment as the neighbors needed to figure out how they could
finesse an annexation as an approach to this problem.
Councilor Turchi concurred with Councilor Graham that the City needed to be careful how it
handled this problem in order to avoid the appearance of ramming a solution down the
neighborhood's throat. He held that if the neighborhood could not see a clear self-interest in
being in the city in a situation like this, then nothing would convince them of it.
Mr. Powell asked what the violation was that was a violation of the City Code but not a violation
of the County Code. He indicated that one could not have a septic tank actually draining into a
surface pool in either the City or the County. He reiterated that if there was sewage draining into
Springbrook Creek, then the City could enforce its Code without annexation. Councilor Turchi
clarified that it was draining into the wetlands in Waluga Park.
Councilor Rohde mentioned that his car was hit by a golf ball when lie was up at Pioneer
Cemetery visiting relatives' graves. He said that a lady had a similar situation, which led him to
conclude that the City might have a problem.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Council President Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.in.
City Council Information Session Minutes
September 17, 2001
Page 8 of 9
511
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Ch stie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Information Session Minutes
September 17, 2001
Page 9 of 9
55
4.3.3
10/16/01
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
MORNING MEETING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 18, 2001
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. on
September 18, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and
Turchi.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder
3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA
Mayor Hammerstad asked Councilor McPeak to read the proclamation expressing sympathy
for the September 11 victims and their families. She asked Councilor Rohde to read the
resolution supporting the President. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, mentioned a couple of
Council -suggested amendments.
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the procedure for the presentation this evening by the
telecommunication representatives. She explained that the purpose was to have an open
discussion about what was going on in the telecommunications industry.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that Councilor Graham would read the consent agenda.
• Item 4.2.4
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she did not have Exhibit A, to which the report referred
(page 39). David Powell, City Attorney, clarified that Exhibit A was the legal document
describing the easement, which was shown on the attached maps, Exhibits C and D. Mr.
Schmitz explained that the bottom map showed the permanent easement for restoration and
maintenance (which the City owned the title to), and the second map showed the temporary
easement needed to reach the construction area.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Turchi that the City was paying the fee title for the
permanent easement and a fee for the temporary use of the property shown on the second map.
Councilor Turchi commented that the City was improving the property and paying for the
privilege.
Mr. Schmitz explained to Councilor Graham that the price paid for easements varied
depending on its use and size. He mentioned that the owner of the easement that the City needed
for the Sycamore sewer wanted $10,000 (which the City negotiated on) while this property
owner agreed to $3,000.
?lir. Powell confirmed to Councilor Graham that there could be instances where the City used
condemnation rather than an easement. Councilor Hoffman pointed out that the same price
would apply.
Councilor Hoffman asked why the property owner would not simply let the City use the
easement. He observed that the City fixing up her backyard increased the value of her property,
as \\ rll as providing a benefit down stream.
Nlr. Powell questioned that the City restoring the stream to its natural condition as a means of
improving stream quality and preventing erosion necessarily increased the property value. He
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2001
Page 1 of 12
y
4M
pointed out that this kind of work was not always consistent with the property owner's
landscaping desires, which made the question of increased property value debatable..
Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Councilor Graham that the bottom portion of the easement ran with
the land.
Councilor Graham asked who damaged the creek in the first place, citing the new creek
alignment shown on Exhibit C. Mr. Schmitz explained that the City realigning the creek as part
of the bank grading and restoration did not mean that anyone did anything to the stream; the
slope of the stream bank naturally degraded into more of a `canyon' over the years as the flows
came through.
Councilor Rohde recalled that earlier the City had found that the costs of dressing the bottom of
the stream were far greater than doing something upstream. He noted that this would cost the
City $3,000 but it would save the City one month of filtering costs. He characterized this as a
cost-effective action. He observed that historically it was very difficult for the City to get onto
private property in order to do these things.
Mr. Powell referenced Councilor Graham's question about who was responsible for the
degradation. He explained that typically the City required those who did something illegal under
the Sensitive Lands Ordinance to mitigate at their own costs. He concluded that this problem
occurred naturally or long before the City had protective measures in place.
Councilor McPeak commented that the exhibit was virtually useless in illustrating what was
going on. Mayor Hammerstad agreed that it would have been good to have the exhibit in color
and coded.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Schoen that the City budgeted the cost of the restoration in
the storm water management budget, as part of its restoration efforts all along Springbrook
Creek. He mentioned that the previous Council made a commitment to the Lake Corporation to
address the erosion and sediment flowing into Oswego Lake.
Councilor Hoffman suggested publicizing the City's efforts to address this problem. Councilor
Schoen concurred.
• Other
Councilor Graham asked where the increased funding of $4,500 to the diversion program came
from. Mr. Schmitz said that the funds came from the County; the City functioned as a pass
through agency.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that the cost of the stream gauging station on
Springbrook Creek was $7,700, which came out of the storm water account. He said that the
equipment lasted a long time; it was designed as a post.
Councilor McPeak noted a correction to the minutes on page 61, adding `as' to the phrase "such
as a signal light."
Mayor Hammerstad noted that they were postponing the sign code (Item 7.1) to October 16.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned adding it to the October 1 work session agenda. Mayor Hammerstad
explained that Chris Schetky called regarding the sign code, and they decided to wait on a public
hearing until they got the sign code into a form that the Council could pass.
Mr. Powell mentioned a question that some have asked on the use of the name `TCI Cablevision
of Tualatin Valley' as opposed to AT&T. He indicated that AT&T took over TCI Cable by
becoming a parent company; therefore, the designation was correct.
Mr. Powell advised the Council that he received an e-mail from Metro amending the extension
agreement to substitute "TCI CableVision of Tualatin Valley" for "AT&T" throughout the
document, as a clarification measure. I le said that he would review the suggested changes and
advise the Council tonight as to whether they involved substantive changes or typographical
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12
September 18, 2001
60
corrections. He noted that, should there be substantive changes, the Council could direct him to
bring back an amended ordinance.
• Sustainability Conference report
The Council discussed when those who attended the sustainability conference should make their
report. Councilor Rohde spoke in support of October 2, as he was not yet ready.
Councilor Turchi mentioned the session he attended on asset mapping. He asked if Lake
Oswego had a graphic representation of the various assets of the community, such as churches,
grocery stores, restaurants, daycare centers, etc. He noted that it could be used as a planning tool
for creating zones of benefit. He commented that developing an asset map was a potential
project for the Youth Council.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to setting aside time to discuss the aspects of sustainability,
including whether asset mapping would be a worthwhile project. Councilor Rohde suggested
framing the Councilor reports as a round table community discussion of the issue. Mayor
Hammerstad recalled a conversation while returning from the sustainability conference of doing
a community forum on sustainability to discuss the internal and external issues in relation to the
community.
Councilor Schoen discussed his concern with getting into an unnecessary level of detail, given
that the City has already identified town centers and transportation corridors for land use
purposes. He questioned whether getting into that much detail might take staff away from other
activities that were necessary.
Councilor Turchi explained that he brought it up because years ago the high school students did
an inventory of the surface water sources in the city, which the City used as part of the map for
creation of the Comprehensive Plan. He wondered if there were other activities like that. He
indicated that he was not interested in creating documents that went nowhere.
Councilor McPeak spoke of a public discussion of sustainability as the most important next step
to her, since this would be an educational effort to a great extent. She asked if they should give
the reports tonight or wait to incorporate their reports into the educational process.
Councilor Graham mentioned the letter the Council received from the person who wanted to
talk about the City following Portland's lead with respect to the use of Styrofoam. She
commented that she saw this concern as tying into the livability of Oregon. She spoke of talking
about sustainability, which the Council could use as a lead-in to discussion of an ordinance
restricting the use of Styrofoam in the city, if it so desired.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned possibly holding a televised meeting on another night of the
week to discuss this multi -faceted subject. She suggested reporting tonight that five Councilors
attended the sustainability conference, and that the Council was looking forward to having a
community forum on sustainability.
Councilor Turchi observed that connectivity and reducing the number and length of trips fell
under the umbrella of sustainability. Mayor Hammerstad commented that mode split and
density did also. Councilor McPeak mentioned Metro planning also. Councilor Turchi spoke
in support of reporting on these related subjects as part of an overall strategy.
Councilor Hoffman discussed his interest in asset mapping as a means of developing a grand
scheme for the planning of their community. He noted that this fell under the Community
Development Director's sphere of responsibility as a planner. He acknowledged Councilor
Schoen's staffing concerns but noted the criticism of the Planning Department that it became
mired in the specifics of land use hearings, etc. He spoke to looking at the big picture,
identifying the location of the community's assets and discussing sustainability.
Councilor Graham suggested asking a Lake Oswego citizen, Duke Castle, to make a public
presentation on sustainability. She spoke of each Councilor reporting on the sustainability
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12
September 18, 2001
61
conference at that time in order to generate a larger impact. Mayor Hanimerstad said that she
would ask Councilors for brief comments tonight.
• Item 8.1.1 Library Task Force Charge Statement
Mayor Hammerstad noted that the Joint Library Task Force revised charge statement would go
back to the School Board following Council approval, which put them off the City's timeline but
it was not time sensitive.
The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion to add the phrase `appointed by the City
Council' to the sentence on page 2, `at least one position of the City's seats shall be held by a
member of the City Library Advisory Board, appointed by the City Council.' The Council felt
that the earlier statement that `the Council would appoint 12 members' was sufficient.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Graham that the Council could appoint a second
Library Advisory Board member at its discretion, based on the applications that came in.
Councilor McPeak commented that she thought this draft was much improved but she still
questioned the use of the word `feasible.' She explained that she was more interested in whether
the project was a good idea anti the right thing to do than whether it was feasible. She said that
she would enter that as a small objection.
• hent 8.1.2 Formation of the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee
Mayor Hammerstad noted Mr. Schmitz's suggested revision to the clause "each jurisdiction
with a voting membership should have one vote." (page 128) She pointed out that some cities
also had special districts, which could be construed as separate jurisdictions, each with its own
vote. She spoke to clarifying that, regardless of the number of Jurisdictions within an entity, an
entity would have only one vote.
Councilor Rohde commented that he thought that the document defined `jurisdiction' as
allowing only two seats to represent the special districts. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that
if Tri-City Sewer District was one of the special districts and had a West Linn person on it, that
gave West Linn two votes.
The Council discussed Councilor Rohde's suggested language that `the voting member
representing special districts may not be a resident of a city that had a representative on the
Committee." Mayor Hammerstad commented that, given the large number of service districts
outside of unincorporated cities, it was highly likely that the service district representative would
be from outside a city. She agreed with Councilor Rohde that what they were saying was that
the special district representative could not be a resident of a city.
Councilor McPeak referenced the statement in the membership policy body section, first
paragraph, which limited those other than elected officials to six people, with up to two of those
from the special districts. She asked if these representatives were included because they had
specific reasons to examine issues that came up. Mayor Hammerstad said that the districts had
their own interests and wanted to be at the table but they did not want to incorporate into a city.
She observed that most of the things that the Committee would discuss would not affect the
special districts.
Mayor Hammerstad \\ ithdrew her recommended change, noting that each jurisdiction would
have to approve any change made to the agreement.
Councilor Rohde expressed his concern that the special districts would have a vote, even though
most of the issues that the Committee would be dealing with did not concern them. Mayor
Hammerstad concurred that that was a problem but stated that she saw no way around it
because there were so many special districts and they held weight in Clackamas County.
Councilor Graham asked what the purpose of the group was. Mayor Hammerstad explained
that the purpose was to have united positions on land use and transportation. She commented
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12
September 18, 2001 F►
that, while reaching a united position on land use was a dim hope, she thought there was a
possibility for getting unity on some large transportation projects. She mentioned that it also had
the possibility of airing differences of opinion and not agreeing.
Mayor Hammerstad said that the Washington County Coordinating Council worked because
they have been able to coalesce around some of their interests and because the Council has been
around long enough (15 years) that the jurisdictions could see that there was something in it for
everyone in the long term. She held that it was worth a try.
Mayor Hammerstad remarked that one of the first topics would be the library levy because
Clackamas County was looking at the reallocation formula or folding it into their tax base as part
of their general fund. She said that she asked Mr. Schmitz to get the election results from the last
levy election to see if it earned in Lake Oswego.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned other issues of a county -wide parks district and library district.
She recalled Councilor Rohde's comment at the Timothy Lake conference that county -wide
districts had the potential of the more progressive West side overwhelming the local control on
the East side, as the small towns have not been able to pass their library or park levies. She
described this as a forum for talking about these issues and their consequences.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the Council appoint herself as the Lake Oswego
representative and Councilor Rohde as the alternate, since they were attending anyway as the
MPAC and JPACT representatives.
• Reports on committees
Councilor McPeak indicated that she had a short report on the water consortium. Councilor
Graham mentioned two short reports. Councilor Rohde said he would report on JPACT.
Mayor Hammerstad referenced the memo regarding the Unsung Heroes program. She reported
that she called 1 I people from the list provided her by Councilor Graham and Carole Dickerson
and easily found 9 people eager to serve. She mentioned adding Brian Monahan because lie
wanted to join with the City in the program, possibly using some of the same elements that
Forest Grove has incorporated in its similar program.
In response to Councilor Turchi's query, Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that there was no
prohibition to recognizing people posthumously.
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the schedule of events for the week, including the reception
welcoming Mr. Lashbrook and the Sunday evening candlelight vigil sponsored by the City and
the Lake Oswego Review, which would start at the Bob Bigelow Plaza and move to Millennium
Park.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the report from Echo Northwest (commissioned by Metro)
regarding the slow development of town centers with respect to density and employment. She
described as an excellent report that pointed out many of the barriers they ran into when trying to
achieve these goals.
0 Foothills Task Force
The Council discussed appointing another neighbor to the Foothills Task Force. It agreed on
Councilor Graham's suggestion of Annie Meneakis, the Evergreen Neighborhood Association
President.
The Council discussed Councilor Hoffman's query on whether they should add someone from
Stampher Road. Councilor Hoffman wondered if Stampher Road might be less likely to oppose
annexation if they could participate in the decision making process. Councilor McPeak agreed
with keeping the Stampher Road residents informed but not with giving them a role in the
decisions. Councilor Graham suggested Don Wilson, a Stampher Road resident, as an ad hoc
member.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12
September 18, 2001 63
The Council granted Mayor Hammerstad's request for the authority to appoint an individual
from the upper Urban Renewal District. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned 11,110 Graham as a
candidate.
4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilor Graham indicated to Councilor Schoen that she would continue trying to contact
Michael Carlson about the October 2 date for the Clackamas River Basin Council presentation.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Rohde that the entire capital improvements plan (CIP) was
open for public comment during the public hearing on October 2, and not simply the
adjustments.
Councilor Rohde asked what staff was doing to prepare for the density guidelines discussion.
Mr. Schmitz said that Ms. Heisler was setting up a meeting with the interested neighborhood
people so that the City could show them that density would not have the impacts that they
thought it would.
Councilor Rohde mentioned the New Urbanism program that lie and Councilor Hoffman have
been interested in. He suggested holding a community forum on density, including bringing in
experts in the field, prior to the Council discussion, similar to how they intended to educate the
public on sustainability.
The Council discussed holding a community round table on density. Mayor Hammerstad
suggested billing it as `The Principles of New Urbanism and Planning the Community.'
Councilor Hoffman spoke to specially inviting LONAC and those who attended the last
hearing. Councilor McPeak observed that the subject of density aroused strong emotions
against it because it was not clear what the City was talking about. She spoke to finding a way to
clarify what minimum density meant for Lake Oswego. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the
Council sit in the audience.
The Council agreed to try to set up the round table on Thursday, October 23. Councilor Rohde
suggested inviting Mr. Groznik, a resident who was involved in the issue.
Councilor Schoen concurred with Councilor McPeak that the problem with the density
discussions was the amount of `bureaucratic -speak' about Metro. He spoke to staff clearly
explaining that because there was only a certain amount of developable land left in Lake
Oswego, the impact would not be as immense as people thought. He observed that what people
really looked at was the impact on their quality of life. He reiterated the importance of stating
that clearly rather than in typical planning terms.
Mayor Hammerstad noted the open public meeting on Wednesday, October 10, of the Council,
the Traffic Advisory Board and the Boones Feng Task Force regarding Boones Ferry.
Councilor Hoffman mentioned the Tuesday, October 9, meeting of the Council, the Planning
Commission, the Development Review Commission and the Infill Task Force. He held that this
was an important meeting for the Council because it provided the opportunity to determine
whether the Task Force was headed in a direction with which the Council agreed. He pointed out
that the Task Force was developing proposed approaches to the problem based on certain
assumptions about the problem.
Councilor Hoffman spoke to Councilors stating any disagreements with the analysis or the
proposed solutions now, as opposed to when the Council heard the report in January. He noted
the significant amount of time and effort that the Task Force was devoting to this process.
The Council discussed Councilor Rohde's idea of sending a single sheet briefing of what was
going on in the City to an a -mail list of interested parties. Councilor Turchi suggested getting
an estimate of the cost of maintaining a list of e -addresses. I le mentioned an option of having
people sign-up on the web by inputting their e -addresses into a list; the City could forward the
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12
September 18, 2001
64
information and not have to update continually the e -address list. The Council agreed that staff
should look into the possibilities.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Council Budget: status report
Councilor McPeak characterized the situation as an example of the Council not being as upfront
as it should be on issues, given that the Council had two opportunities to vote against the change
to the Council budget and chose not to do so. She said that she would have been happier if the
Council had shot down the funding reduction earlier rather than complaining about it afterwards.
The Council discussed whether to reinstate the $1,000 per Councilor in the Council budget,
which the Budget Committee removed. Mr. Schmitz indicated that staff simply needed
direction on whether to return to the $4,000 per Councilor of the last fiscal year.
Councilor Hoffman asked if $3,000 per Councilor would pay for the National League of Cities
or the League of Oregon Cities. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that it would not pay for the
Washington, D.C. conference.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to the Council living within the $3,000 allocation this year. She
said that they could tell the Budget Committee next year that it was not enough.
Councilor Schoen stated his opposition to changing the $3,000 allocation in response to a
citizen inquiry.
Councilor Turchi asked if the Council would pay separately when it sent someone to a meeting
that was of value to the group in general. Mayor Hammerstad said that they did not do that,
although she did see a distinction between Councilors attending meetings for training and
Councilors attending meetings as representatives of the Council.
Councilor McPeak argued that the intent of this part of the budget was to account for those
needs and to limit them. Councilor Turchi spoke to separating the training meetings from the
representational meetings. He said that he understood the $4,000 as a personal account that he
could use to further his education and involvement in the Council, and not as a restriction on the
Council's ability to send representatives to important meetings, such as the Timothy Lake retreat.
Councilor McPeak indicated that she also saw the distinction but reiterated that they needed to
address the issue in the budget.
Councilor Rohde argued that by having so many Lake Oswego City Councilors at the
sustainability conference, the Council sent a message that it considered this issue of significant
value. He mentioned that people did notice that Lake Oswego was at the conference. Councilor
McPeak questioned that line of reasoning because there was no end to it. She commented that
the taxpayers might want to discuss how valuable it was to them.
Councilor McPeak reiterated that the Council should address this issue openly in the next
budget process and clearly state what its needs were for inclusion in the budget. She stated that
her position was that the Council should use the process when the opportunities were given to it.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that the existing funds would not cover his Washington, D.C., trip
because he spent four extra days there representing JPACT, which was extremely valuable.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Council could vote additional dollars to Councilor
Rohde as its JPACT representative.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested looking at the $3,000 as the training budget and allocating
separately any requests for representation at meetings. Mr. Schmitz confirmed that that was
doable. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned another option of per diem, describing it as `drastic.'
Councilor Schoen suggested that half the Council attend the Washington, D.C., conference one
year and the other half attend it the next year. He concurred with Councilor Rohde that there
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12
September 18, 2001 65
were certain meetings that the Council should cover under any circumstances, although he was
not certain that they could determine those up front. He questioned sending five people to the
sustainability conference. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that that conference cost only $50 a
person.
The Council discussed pooling the money. Councilors McPeak and Schoen supported doing
so. Councilor Rohde observed that the Council could do a supplemental allocation as it
approached the end of the pool, if it looked as if they were running into a problem. Councilor
Turchi spoke in support of voting on an individual going to a meeting that the Council thought
was important to Council business rather than finding out in March that he did not have
sufficient funds to attend the National League of Cities conference.
Councilor Rohde explained that the National League of Cities was a separate issue from any
other meetings; each Councilor was guaranteed one NLC conference per year and the Mayor
could attend both conferences. He spoke to separating the NLC conference out as a training
budget item and funding it as it needed to be funded. He pointed out that if they took the NLC
conference out, they could reduce the guaranteed pot of money to $2,000 per person, as the
remainder of the training conferences averaged $250 to $300. Councilor McPeak commented
that the amount spent for the NLC should not be lavish.
Councilor Turchi mentioned that the School District paid toward transportation, hotel and per
diem. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that Councilor Turchi attended School District -related
conferences as a paid professional who could take the expense off his income tax as a
professional expense. Councilor Turchi conceded the point.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she was hearing consensus to pool the money and to stay
with the amount in the current budget. If the Council needed to send someone to something that
was not covered, it would go through the allocation process.
5.2 Sister City Status Report
Councilor Turchi reported that he talked to Robert Gould, Mead of the Department of
Philosophy, and to Patricia Whitlock of the Foreign Language Department at Portland State
University for advice on how Lake Oswego should approach restructuring its relationship with
Yoshikawa. He said that they told him that it was fairly easy to restructure but they could not do
it directly. He indicated that Ms. Whitlock agreed to work with the Council to formulate the
necessary indirect messages, which would be clear to the Japanese but obscure to everyone else.
Councilor Turchi said that three Japanese graduate students in the doctorate program of conflict
resolution at PSU would be willing to meet with the Council to discuss how to handle the
situation. He noted that first, the Council needed a clear idea of what kind of relationship, if any,
it wanted to have with Yoshikawa.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that it was good to have those contacts because Azumano, who
has served as the information conduit, wanted to charge the City for anything sent to Japan. She
commented that the Council has been stepping around this issue for a while, and has not resolved
how it wanted to continue or discontinue the relationship.
Councilor McPeak recalled Councilor Rohde's request at their last discussion for information
on what Beaverton and other cities have done.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that Yoshikawa's requests were modest; they wanted to come to
Lake Oswego for the Run and one other event during the year. She indicated that the City paid
for lodging, the gift and dinner. She mentioned that Yoshikawa wanted Lake Oswego to send a
runner to their city but the Lake Oswego runner would have to pay his/her own expenses. She
said that they did have the money to send some artwork to Yoshikawa's festival.
Councilor Turchi spoke to developing a community infrastructure to support the program, as
opposed to a City government infrastructure. Mayor Hammerstad concurred. Councilor
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12
September 18, 2001
66
Turchi recalled his efforts to find hosts for the runners six weeks in advance and finding no one
who was available on those dates. He mentioned finding a committee of people willing to serve
as hosts.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested, with the guidance of PSU, putting out a call for interested
people to serve on a Sister City Committee. Councilor Turchi mentioned that there were people
in the community who have indicated an interest. Mr. Powell commented that Dave Yaden, of
the previous Sister City Association, thought that there were people who would he enthusiastic if
they thought that the Council supported the relationship. He noted that most of the people on the
previous committee had been interested in the Chilean connection.
Councilor Graham spoke to the Council deciding first if it wanted to continue the relationship.
Councilors Graham, McPeak and Hoffman said that they were interested in severing it.
Councilors Schoen, Rohde and Mayor Hammerstad indicated their support of continuing the
relationship.
Councilor Turchi pointed out that right now was the wrong time to end a sister city relationship.
He spoke to reaching out to people, especially former enemies.
The Council agreed with Councilor Schoen's suggestion that Mayor Hammerstad put out a call
for volunteers for an ad hoc sister city committee; if there was no support, then there was no
support. Mayor Hammerstad noted that Chris Hoffman at the Chamber was still willing to be
active in the relationship.
Councilor Rohde confirmed that the former Sister City Committee had been geared towards
Chile; when the Yoshikawa relationship formed in the mid-1990s, the City dumped it on the
committee, which did not want to pursue it in the first place. He agreed that they needed to find
out if the community saw any value in the Yoshikawa relationship.
5.3 Updating Eagle Creek Testimony
Mayor Hammerstad noted that three Councilors went on the Eagle Creek tour (Graham, Turchi
and Rohde). Councilor Graham mentioned that the Forest Service conducted this tour on the
ground; previously they rode with Oregon Natural Resources Council representatives on a plane
for the aerial view.
Mayor Hammerstad referenced the letter that the Council sent out in April, which she believed
still addressed the issues that the Council had been interested in addressing. She mentioned that
she declined an invitation to speak at an upcoming rally at Pioneer Square to protest the logging
in old growth forests.
Councilor Rohde described this as going into the broader policy of which fights did the Council
want to fight. Mayor Hammerstad concurred, indicating that she was comfortable stating Lake
Oswego's interest in the watershed but she did not see a role beyond that. Councilor McPeak
concurred with the Mayor.
Councilor Rohde observed that initially he had been swept up in the position of the Oregon
Natural Resources Council (ONRC) on this question but further investigation of the issue led
him to a different conclusion. He referenced the ONRC's statement that Lake Oswego should be
concerned about this issue because it affected the drinking water of its citizens, a statement for
which he could find no support. He mentioned discovering things like the three areas on the
Clackamas River that discharged treated sewer into the river, and the private holdings with no
stream buffers over which the government had no control.
Councilor Turchi commented that there was a fish hatchery on the Clackamas that had more
effect on water quality than logging.
Councilor Schoen indicated that his position from the beginning has been that Lake Oswego
should not become involved in the matter. tie characterized the situation as a reaction to the
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12
September 18, 2001
ONRC and people hanging off buildings downtown, which he did not think fairly represented a
measured analysis of the logging. Councilor Turchi pointed out that the trees they saw were not
old growth trees but trees with the diameters of telephone poles.
Councilor Graham discussed her sense that the ranger district and the forest service were
looking at the situation with a fine tooth comb. She said that she agreed with what they were
doing. She mentioned seeing the huge degradation from off -the -road vehicles that had nothing to
do with the Forest Service and the degradation along a stream bank off Forest Service land. She
spoke to talking to Salem about state forest practices.
Mayor Hammerstad summarized the consensus as direction to leave the letter as it was.
5.4 Wilson Creek Site
Mr. Schmitz presented a sketch of the 50 -acre Wilson Creek site. He said that the Three Rivers
Land Trust has been trying to put together the resources to purchase the front 20 acres and then
leverage that to get the back 30 acres. He reported that Three Rivers received $300,000 from the
County towards the front 20 acres; the Trust wanted to partition off five acres from the front
section for sale (hopefully getting $300,000 to $350,000 for it).
Mr. Schmitz said that Three Rivers has asked the City for the $100,000 that the Council had
discussed contributing towards the acquisition of this property, priced at $720,000.
Councilor Rohde declared that a close friend's father was the private individual interested in
purchasing the five acres. He stated that lie would receive no monetary benefit from the
transaction.
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council did discuss a sum of $100,000, and that it told the
County Commission in its letter of support that it was prepared to support the acquisition.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that Lake Oswego's $100,000 would push Three
Rivers' total over the $720,000 mark, but only if Three Rivers got $350,000 for the five acres.
He commented that even $300,000 was high.
Councilor Rohde concurred. He mentioned that the interested purchaser was looking at $50,000
an acre. Mayor Hammerstad agreed that $250,000 was more realistic. Mr. Schmitz
mentioned that when he told Three Rivers that the City thought that their appraisals were high,
their director indicated that that was what the appraisals were.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that, even if Three Rivers fell short, they could use what they
had to leverage the rest. She asked for Council authorization to cut a check for the $100,000, to
which the Council already agreed.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Hoffman that Three Rivers was negotiating to purchase the
back 30 acres but presently there was a big gap between the price and the appraisal
Mr. Schmitz confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the 15 acres was a conservation easement.
He indicated that the back 30 acres, if purchased, would belong to Three Rivers,
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Schoen that a condition of sale for the Ove acres would
likely be a pedestrian easement in order to connect with the pathway system on the other 15
acres.
Councilor Hoffman asked if the Council could spend money on something that the City would
not own. Mr. Powell indicated that the Council could do so if it could articulate the public
benefit. He noted that there could also be an incidental private benefit. He said that he did not
think that there was any legal policy issue involved.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hoffman that a contribution towards the acquisition of open
space for public conservation did meet the basic purpose of the bond.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12
September 18, 2001
61S
Councilor Hoffman said that, while he thought that the concept was fine, he (lid have a concern
with spending money on something that the City did not own. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out
that Metro was putting money towards the purchase of the back 30 acres because it would link up
with the pathway program. She observed that the County would not own the property either,
even with its contribution.
Councilor Schoen asked that Mr. Powell look into the Council spending money on something
that the City would not own. Councilor Hoffman spoke to making sure that the purchase
benefited Lake Oswego and that the City could articulate that benefit. Mr. Powell mentioned
having Lake Oswego named as beneficiary in the covenant, which would provide an enforceable
property interest that might help justify the expenditure of the bond.
Mr. Schmitz said that he did not need Council action at this point; he had wanted to make sure
that it was all right to instruct Ms. Heisler to proceed.
Councilor Graham observed that it cost the County $300,000 for the easement on the fifteen
acres that it would not own. She indicated that she would feel comfortable with the idea if the
City could somehow have an ownership in the land. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned signage
saying `City of Lake Oswego.'
Councilor Rohde commented that Three Rivers was likely to come back and ask for another
$100,000 when it got close on the 30 acres.
5.6 Security
Councilor McPeak spoke of the Council's obligation to address security issues to reduce Lake
Oswego's vulnerability to terrorist attacks. She asked if the security at the water supply or the
procedures for recalling emergency personnel were as good as they needed to be.
Mr. Schmitz discussed the security situation at the City's intake facilities on the Clackamas and
at its West Linn treatment plant. He reviewed the increased security measures he authorized as a
result of the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Schmitz said that he did not know if the recall of emergency personnel procedures used a
linear chain fonnat or a spreading tree format.
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Rohde that the City tested its water at the treatment plant
prior to distribution. Councilor Rohde commented that he hoped that the City could stop any
contamination at the treatment plant and live off the reservoirs for a while if necessary.
The Council agreed that Mr. Schmitz should announce this evening that the City has taken
action in a variety of areas to prepare for an emergency but, in the best interests of
confidentiality, would not state any specifics.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Rohde that he would have to check to see if the Council
could meet in Executive Session to discuss emergency operations.
5.7 Council electronic packet
Robyn Christie, City Recorder, reported that they tried out the Council electronic packet by
giving the Mayor and Councilor Rohde the full packet on a CD. She indicated that she was still
waiting on receipt of a CD before proceeding with the other Councilors. She said that she wanted
to go through the installation steps with each Councilor individually.
Ms. Christie indicated to Councilor McPeak that the packet was so large that it would probably
crash her computer if she tried to receive it at a remote location. She said that she was working
with Chip to see if they could send the packet in pieces. Councilor McPeak commented that it
was important to her to be able to get the information while she was out of town.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page I 1 of 12
September 18, 2001 (j �i
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no Executive Session
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the mecting at 9:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Chrigtic
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2001
Page 12 of 12
7 !1
4.3.4
10/16/01
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
JOINT MEETING WITH HRAB
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
September 18, 2001
auaa•/
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council special meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. on
September 18, 2001, in the Municipal Courtroom.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Graham, McPeak, Hoffman (arrived 5:45 p.m.),
Rohde, Schoen and Turchi.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Sidaro Sin, Long Range Planner; Stephan Lashbrook, Community
Development Director
HRAB
Present: Jeanie McGuire, Kasey Holwenda, Gary Mimnaugh
3. Study Session with the Historic Review Advisory Board
The members of the Council, staff and Historic Review Advisory Board introduced themselves.
3.1 Updating the First Addition/Old Town Self -Walking Tour Brochures
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that several Councilors took the walking tour recently,
accompanied by an HRAB member who pointed out additional items of interest. She agreed that
the walking tour brochures needed updating. She asked what the Board thought of establishing a
summer docent program to provide guided tours.
Ms. McGuire recalled that the HRAB created the brochures for Old Town, First Addition and
Marylhurst for pre -1995 programs. She said that the Board would like to update those brochures
and finish the one they started for Lake Grove. She mentioned possibly doing a taped drive
through tour for Lake Grove, given how spread out that neighborhood was. She observed that
HRAB had no budget. She indicated that the Board would start a docent program.
Mayor Hammerstad told the Board to ask for money from the Budget Committee. Sidaro Sin,
Long Range Planner, indicated to Councilor McPeak that, although they missed the budget
cycle last year, they would get into the next budget cycle. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that
the Board could give a list of projects and their costs to Mr. Schmitz at any time.
3.2 Block 138
Ms. Holwenda referenced their memo listing the ideas they developed for how to incorporate
possible historic elements into Block 138, Councilor Rohde suggested that the Board talk with
Barry Cain of Gramor who was open to these kinds of ideas. Councilor McPeak suggested that
the Board talk with the Arts Commission who also had ideas for Block 138.
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, mentioned that Gramor's presentation of the plans for Block 138
to the Development Review Commission tomorrow night at 6 p.m. would be a timely occasion
for the HRAB members to introduce themselves. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the Thursday
evening meeting of the Boards and Commissions chairs would be a good time to contact the Arts
Commission.
Ms. McGuire described Board member Howard Shapiro's idea to create a memorial in
Millennium Plaza Park and/or on Block 138 of a stand of the US flag, the Oregon State flag and
the City of Lake Oswego flag. She mentioned lighting the stand at night and including a bronze
plaque to honor those who died. She commented that she did not know if this fell within the
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Pagel of 4
September 18, 2001 7 3
Board's purview but they were willing to work with the City as necessary. She indicated her
strong support of the idea.
Mr. Schmitz noted that the final phase of Millennium Park did include a flagpole. Mayor
Hammerstad spoke of a temporary solution with a permanent solution at the completion of the
second phase of Millennium Park.
3.3 Historic plaques
Councilor Graham spoke to making the historic marker plaques consistent, whether placed on
Block 138 or on the historic homes in the city. She noted the Board's intent to place two to three
plaques a year on the homes.
Councilor Rohde suggested creating a plaque with the City logo on it and selling to through the
City store. Ms. Holwenda described the Board's offer to the historic homeowners on their list to
purchase a plaque, as opposed to waiting for the City's slow process of posting three a year. She
explained that they started with the homeowners in Old Town and First Addition. She
mentioned their attempt to find a foundry to do a plaque with some sort of logo on it.
Ms. McGuire pointed out that, depending on their budget, they could do more than five a year
($120 a piece). Councilor Rohde observed that it was likely that people would purchase the
plaques themselves once they saw the first ones installed.
Ms. McGuire indicated to Councilor McPeak that the Board's intent was to restrict the plaques
to those on their list of landmark building/house owners in order to maintain the specialness of
the plaque. The Council generally concurred with the idea.
Ms. McGuire mentioned the interest they have heard in the community for historic markers as a
reason they decided to proceed with the project. She indicated to Councilor Schoen that their
criteria for the plaques was inclusion on the landmarks list.
Ms. Holwenda mentioned the Board's notebook of houses. She noted that many of those houses
have been taken off the landmarks list. She spoke to revising the Code to make it more attractive
to historic homeowners to want to be on the list, as currently it was somewhat of a detriment to
be on the list.
3.4 Code Revision
Councilor Turchi concurred that the requirement in the City Code to bring older homes up to
the current Code during a remodel or expansion functioned as a disincentive to remodeling in
favor of tearing the old home down. He noted that the Infill Task Force was looking at the issue.
He spoke to relaxing the Code to provide an incentive for the remodeling of historic homes. He
mentioned the lack of design standards and the need to develop something reasonable. The
Board indicated its full support of finding a way to encourage historically appropriate
remodeling.
Ms. McGuire noted that Chapter 58 has never been revised. Mr. Sin noted that the Board
wanted to soften some of the language. He speculated that it would take a year, including public
involvement, to identify exactly what the Code issues were. Ms. Holwenda indicated to Mayor
Hammerstad that she had training as a lawyer and could work with the Board on writing a draft
revision. She mentioned that Mr. Mimnaugh's experience as a remodeler would also be helpful.
3.5 Additional Board Appointments
Mayor Hammerstad noted that, while the Board had three applications for the one position at
this time, it also had three other positions coming up at the same time. She suggested that the
Council put out a call for applications or reapplications for the other three positions and
interview for all four positions at the same time.
Ms. Holwenda confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that they had one member who has never
showed up. She mentioned the Board's intent to send a letter to the Council asking for
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
September 18, 2001 74
permission to handle the situation. She commented that they were having difficulties reaching a
quorum. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that they would try to expedite it.
3.6 Iron Smelter
Ms. Holwenda mentioned the Board's surprise upon learning that the City had applied for a
grant for the smelter, and their feeling left out of the process. She commented that they had been
trying to figure out some way to approach the matter.
Councilor Graham asked what was the total cost of bringing the smelter up to Code and
preserving it. Mr. Sin indicated that the cost of the first phase of restoration and stabilization
was $150,000; the second phase of an interpretive center was in the $800,000 range.
Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Graham that the matching grant from the Historic Preservation
Office was for $20,000, which would help with the restoration phase. Mr. Schmitz mentioned
that the City did budget some money for the project and has applied to the County Tourism
Development Council for funding.
Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Rohde that what needed to be done now was the engineering
assessment as part of the first phase of restoration and stabilization.
Ms. McGuire indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the Board has never had a relationship with
the Heritage House organization, although the Oswego Heritage Council has recently made some
overtures to the Board, which they could follow up on. Ms. Holwenda mentioned talking with
the new president Larry Keating. She observed that the Heritage Council was a privately funded
group with money while the Board had no funds and many good intentions. She expressed her
hope that they could work together to accomplish mutual goals.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested recruiting a couple of Heritage Council members for the HRAB
openings. Councilor Graham suggested looking the Adult Community Center also for potential
HRAB members. Ms. Holwenda mentioned that, in the past, some of the Heritage Housc people
and the Board have had an adversarial relationship because the Board would not let those people
take their homes off the list for remodeling. She indicated that they were trying to patch up that
rift and to find a way to work together to preserve the history and to be more flexible with the
homeowners.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned a fundraiser of the smelter as a holiday ornament sold through the City
store. Councilor Graham suggested selling bricks as a way of raising funds.
3.7 Headgate
Ms. McGuire indicated that, over the past six year, the Board took the headgate project as far as
it could, and it was now with the City's special project people.
Mr. Schmitz reported that staff had an appropriation for $2,000 for engineering work at the
selected site in Roehr Park. Staff spent $1,400 on the project, and then some members on the
previous Council wanted to locate it some place else than Roehr Park. With some members on
this Council also wanting to locate it elsewhere, the project halted.
Ms. McGuire commented that she had thought that the Bryant Woods site was agreeable to
everyone.
Councilor Hoffman arrived at 5:45 p.m.
Councilor Rohde stated that he was one of the Councilors who most strongly objected to
locating the headgate at Roehr Park because the park had no affiliation with the Tualatin River
Canal. He recalled his argument that the headgate would make an excellent monument at
Boones Ferry Road where the Tualatin traffic entered the city, given that the headgate had been
the control element over the Tualatin River coming into Oswego Lake. Ile indicated that, even
with the building of Nature's, there was still land available for a water sculpture using the
headgate, which would serve as an historic and visible entrance to Lake Oswego.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
September 18, 2001 rr J
Mayor Hammerstad asked the Board to bring a proposal to the Council for disposition of the
headgate as an entrance monument.
3.8 Preservation easements
Councilor Rohde asked if it was legal for the City to have a pot of money to use for the
purchase of historic homes, place a covenant on the home to prohibit tear down, to resell the
restricted home and to put the money back into the pot for purchasing another home. He
observed that it would be a steadily declining fund but it could offer some protection. The
Board indicated that that was possible. Ms. McGuire noted that the George Rogers home had
that type of restriction on it.
Ms. Holwenda mentioned a prestigious home on a triple lot for sale on Lakeview that had been
removed from the landmarks list. She held that it was the next candidate for tear down and
replacement by one or two monster houses, unless an historic -minded person bought it. Mayor
Hammerstad mentioned that the homeowner could not find buyers interested in historic
preservation.
Ms. McGuire commented that the Board would like nothing more than for the City to become
involved in historic preservation in a tangible way. Councilor Schoen asked if the City could
provide a tax incentive. Mr. Powell said that he would have to research that question.
Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Ms. McGuire that the Council did know about the outcome
of the Hillsboro trial and the requirement that the resources on the landmarks list had to go
through a procedure now.
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the items discussed during the meeting:
• The Council encouraged the Board to pursue the bronze plaque program, with plaques
located at Millennium Park, at Block 138, at random locations throughout the town and
historic markers on homes
• Selling smelter bricks sounded like a good idea.
• Discussion of the flag trio as a memorial
• The Board would make a proposal to the Council regarding the headgate
• The Board wanted to be involved with the smelter project
• Possible Board projects included the update of the First Addition and Old Town walking
brochures and/or taped informative guides
• Mr. Sin said that Code revisions could take up to a year
• Code revisions could include preservation easements
• Legal issues regarding someone who did not protest the listing of his/her property requesting
that the Board take his/her property off the list
• The need to get new members on the Board
• Tree ornaments of the smelter for sale next year
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Chiistie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2001
Page 4 of 4
76
4.3.5
10/16/01
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
REGULAR MEETING
10 L"" -*,*,
� �ffx CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 18, 2001
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. on
September 18, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and
Turchi.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder
Councilor McPeak read a proclamation expressing the City of Lake Oswego's sorrow on behalf
of the citizens of the community for the loss of their fellow countrymen and citizens of the world
in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania as a result of terrorist activities, and its
sympathy to the survivors of the victims.
A voice vote was taken on appro%inh the proclamation and the approval passed with
Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi
voting in favor. 17-01
Councilor Rohde commented that, as last week's events unfolded, it became clear to the
Council that the atrocities reached beyond the local communities on the East Coast, extending
even to Lake Oswego. He said that the Council also understood the importance of supporting the
United States government from the local community level up to the federal level. He read
Resolution 01-76, expressing the City Council's support for President George W. Bush in his
stated intent to rid the world of terrorism.
Councilor Rohde moved adoption of Resolution 01-76. The motion was seconded. A voice
vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Graham,
McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voted in favor. 17-01
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the City would forward copies of the proclamation and
resolution to the President.
Mayor Hammerstad read a statement from the City Council expressing its appreciation for the
actions taken by the Lake Oswego City staff last Tuesday, after it became obvious that the events
in New York City were not accidents but rather deliberate and planned activities, to assure the
safety and security of the community, its citizens and its assets. On behalf of the Council, she
thanked the City employees for their efforts last Tuesday and their daily service to the
community, mentioning the public safety departments in particular.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the spontaneous interfaith event at Millennium Park last Friday
noon, to which 500 people showed up, having heard about it through word of mouth and flyers.
She commented that the people were grateful to have an opportunity to join together as a
community. She invited the community to attend a candlelight event this Sunday evening,
beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Bob Bigelow Plaza and walking down to Millennium Park for a
short remembrance program.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Hammerstad invited the public to join the Council in a moment of silence in recognition
of the tragedy last week.
City Council Minutes Page 1 of 15
September 18, 2001
7�
3. PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITION
3.1 AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) —
presentation on high speed access
Mayor Hammerstad explained that the Council scheduled this presentation because AT&T
asked for an extension of their franchise agreement. She noted that this particular presentation
was for the telecommunications companies to discuss high speed access; AT&T would discuss
the franchise agreement later in the meeting.
Mayor Hammerstad referenced the dissatisfaction in the community with the unavailability of
DSL access through the phone companies and with AT&T's failure to provide broadband cable
access by the time people had been to believe it would be available. She mentioned that the City
forwarded the numerous phone calls it received to the Metropolitan Area Communications
Commission (MACC). She reviewed the procedure for this agenda item.
Bill Proust, Qwest Area Manager, explained that DSL, or digital subscriber line, was a
technology that allowed high speed band width transmission over the traditional copper wires of
the phone system, which meant the simultaneous use of voice and data streams. He discussed the
limitations of the technology, focusing on its sensitivity to distance: it only functioned within a
three-mile radius of the central office where the DSL equipment was installed. He noted that
Qwest's central office in Lake Oswego was on First Street, and was one of the 22 out of 77 wire
centers with DSL.
Mr. Proust discussed DSLAMs, the remote DSL terminals that extended the DSL range beyond
the three-mile radius. He noted that Lake Oswego got nine of the 50 remote terminals that Qwest
started installing this year. He mentioned the inherent technical and physical plant problems
with DSL that could prevent getting it to a home or business that fell within the DSL availability
footprint.
Mr. Proust discussed the DSL services offered by Qwest, noting that the higher the speed, the
higher the price. He reviewed Qwest's procedures when someone ordered DSL. He mentioned
that receiving orders, even if DSL was not yet available in an area, helped their marketing people
determine which areas of the community wanted the service.
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that a month ago a young woman came door-to-door in her
neighborhood selling Qwest DSL service. Mr. Proust agreed that that was an unusual marketing
method and observed that, given the competition in the marketplace, Qwest was trying various
marketing methods to get the word out on the services that it offered.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that she had one phone line that qualified for DSL and one that
did not. Mr. Proust speculated on the probable technical reasons for the difference.
Observing that Qwest was the primary local phone company in Lake Oswego, Bob Wayt,
External Affairs Manager for Verizon in Oregon, discussed the background of Verizon. He
said that Verizon was a national company formed by the merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic; it was
the largest local phone company in the US as its sister company of Verizon Wireless was the
largest wireless carrier in the US.
Mr. Wayt mentioned the company's pride in its employees who worked around the clock for six
days to restore the telecommunications necessary to make possible the reopening of the stock
market in New York City on Monday.
Mr. Wayt said that Verizon had more than 500,000 customer lines in Oregon, mostly in the
Portland metro area. He noted that they served almost all of Washington County. He described
how Verizon gained a foothold in Lake Oswego as customers with a Lake Oswego address
moved into their boundaries. lie indicated that these customers were in the Kruse Way,
Rivergrove, Childs Road and Pilkington Road areas.
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 15
September 18, 2001
�U
Mr. Wayt said that the primary broadband service offered by Verizon was DSL, a service that
customers liked because it did not tie up their phone line while they were on the Internet, and
because it was 20 to 30 times faster than the standard Internet modem connection. He indicated
that GTE began offering DSL in Oregon in 1998, and Verizon has expanded the service to other
areas. He noted that DSL service was presently available to two-thirds of the 10,000 Verizon
customers in Lake Oswego but the number would increase soon as they completed bringing DSL
to the Rivergrove area by the end of the year.
Mr. Wayt concurred with Mr. Proust that DSL did have distance limitations. i le mentioned a
key consideration for Verizon in deciding whether to deploy DSL in an area: the projected
number of customers who would order the service. He noted that DSL was expensive to install.
He reviewed Verizon's pricing options, which increased with the higher the speed, as did
Qwest's.
Mr. Wayt indicated to Councilor McPeak that Verizon had four DSL switching units in the
Lake Oswego area, which each had the three-mile radius: Kruse Way, Pilkington, Rivergrove
and Childs Road.
Mr. Proust commented that Qwest placed remote DSLAMs on Lakeview Blvd, Carmen Drive,
South Shore, Boones Ferry and McNary Parkway.
Councilor Graham asked if Verizon and Qwest competed for DSL business. Mr. Proust said
that they did not do so at this time but it was foreseeable in the future that they might do so.
Councilor Graham asked if co -location worked with the DSL technology, as it did with the cell
phone technology. Mr. Proust said that there were possibilities for co -locating equipment in the
future but they did not co -locate now. He explained that usually each company owned its own
equipment (the size of a small refrigerator) and put it on pads located on 10' by 20' pieces of
property.
Mr. Wayt noted that co -location was not unprecedented in the telecommunications industry, as
currently regulations required companies to offer space in their major switching officers to
competitors to locate their equipment in that switching office. He observed that, if it made good
business sense to partner, then they would do so, as they have done in the past.
Debbie Lepold, Vice President, Local Government Relations, AT&T for Northwest
markets, described `Excite At Home,' the high speed data and internet service available from
AT&T Broadband, the cable affiliate of AT&T, which used the cable plant to connect to either
the television set or the computer. She characterized the service as `middle of the road' in terms
of speed and price. She described AT&T's upgrade of its cable plant to deliver enhanced video
services and the At -Home service.
Ms. Lepold said that once these services became available, they would be available to anyone
who lived in an area within the franchise boundaries that met the franchise density requirements.
She mentioned the take rates throughout their markets as averaging around 7% to 8%, which
AT&T found highly satisfactory for this product.
Ms. Lepold indicated to Councilor McPeak that the upstream speed was 128 KB per second
and the downstream varied from 28K to 3.5MB per second.
Ms. Leopold indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that, although currently their price did not
depend upon speed, it was conceivable that in the future it would. She confirmed that the high
speed data service generally followed the upgraded video services by 30 to 60 days. She
confirmed that the density standard requirement was also true for video.
Mayor Hammerstad opened the floor to public questions.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 15
September 18, 2001
• 8i
• Carolyn Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way
Ms. Jones noted that, within the last month, Qwest announced that it no longer intended to pay
franchise fees in the City of Portland. She asked Mr. Proust if that held true in Lake Oswego.
Mr. Proust stated that that involved a court proceeding that he was not prepared to address at
this time.
Ms. Jones observed that that case could set a precedent for utilities not paying the fees, which
came to a considerable amount of money. She commented that apparently while no one was
looking, the laws changed and now the telecommunication companies claimed that they were no
longer liable to pay those fees. She suggested that the City rethink the structure of the agreement
before proceeding.
Ilavid Powell, City Attorney, indicated that the court system would sort out the controversy
over whether a decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court in Washington State applied. He said
that Qwest and the other telecommunication providers had the right to be in the right-of-way
pursuant to federal law. He pointed out that the City did not regulate DSL service; it regulated
video cable service through MACC. He explained that the Internet broadband access under
discussion tonight was a separate issue from the franchise fee issue.
Mr. Proust commented that they were not arguing with the fact that they needed to pay to be in
the right-of-way; the question was what they paid and how they paid.
Mr. Powell mentioned that Qwest has offered to set aside the franchise fees, as stated in the
agreement, until the courts settled the Portland litigation.
Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that Lake Oswego could argue a pre-existing contract, so they
were not in the same legal position as Portland. She agreed that it was for the courts to decide.
• Michelle Sayer, 220 Chandler Place
Ms. Sayer asked what service did the Lake Oswego library currently use and at what speed.
Bruce Crest, MACC, said that he did not know, because it depended on which County library
system served Lake Oswego. He noted that the Washington County Cooperative Library Service
received its service from the Public Communications Network (PCN), a fiber service from
AT&T.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Graham reviewed the consent agenda for the audience.
Councilor Rohde moved approval of the consent agenda with correction to the minutes.
Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with
Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi
voting in favor. 17-01
Mayor Hammerstad invited interested citizens to pick up an application and the charge
statement for the Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force. She reviewed the composition of the
Task Force, its purpose and its scope of work.
Councilor Rohde noted that the Council also passed on the consent agenda tonight three items
addressing water quality, two of which were on Springbrook Creek.
4.1 COUNCIL BUSINESS
4.1.1 Request to create an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force and approve Charge
Statement
ACTION: To approve the forniation of an Ad -Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force and
related Charge Statement
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 15
September 18, 2001 82
4.2.1 Resolution 01-57, authorizing a temporary easement on River Run Park for the
purpose of wetland enhancement.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution 01-57
4.2.2 Resolution 01-71, authorizing an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement
continuing the Local Youth Diversion Program in order to increase funding for the
program
ACTION: Adopt Resolution 0 1 -71
4.2.3 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.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution 0 1 -72
4.2.4 Resolution 01-73, approving an easement for stream restoration on Springbrook
Creek, and authorizing payment.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution 01-73
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 July 16, 2001, Council retreat
ACTION: Approve minutes as corrected
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
There were none.
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Carolyn Jones, 281.8 S Poplar Way, Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association
Ms. Jones asked the Council to be more hospitable to citizens who came to speak at the
meetings. She indicated that in the past, the Council opened up the curtain to make space for
overflow crowds, which has not happened in the last eight months. She recounted two instances
in the past three months when she came to speak on a specific topic on the agenda but the
Council did not ask for citizen input. She asked the Council to honor citizens' rights to speak.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the blue slips that citizens filled out, which let her know who
wanted to speak. Ms. Jones said that tilling out the blue slips negated the spontaneity of
conversation. She argued that it was the Mayor's role to ask for citizen input, regardless of
whether she had the blue slips. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the blue slips helped
facilitate the meeting. She thanked Ms. Jones for her suggestion about the curtain.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Ordinance 2310, 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 and
specified zoning districts
Mayor Hammerstad explained that the Council was postponing this item requested by the
realtors because the City Attorney was stuck out of town when staff was working on this item,
and they could not finish it.
Councilor Rohde moved to postpone the hearing to October 16, 2001. Councilor McPeak
seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion des! with Mayor
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 15
September 18, 2001
Hammerstad, Councilors Graham, N1cPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voting; in
favor. 17-01
7.2 Ordinance 2311, approving an amendment to the non-exclusive cable television
services franchise agreement granted to TCI Cablevision of Tualatin Valley by extending
the deadline for construction of the required system upgrade
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Powell advised the Council that the amended version of Ordinance 2311, which they would
be passing tonight, reflected clerical corrections only. He explained that, under the Charter,
technical changes did not require notice or continuation.
Bruce Crest, MACC, introduced Debbie Lepold from AT&T and Sarah Hackett, MACC
Senior Communications Analyst. He presented the MACC Board of Commissioners
recommendation on AT&T's request for an extension of time to complete the cable TV service
upgrade in the MACC service area (14 jurisdictions). He directed the Council's attention to the
staff report, the question and answer sheet, and the executive summary.
Mr. Crest recalled that one requirement in the franchise renewal to TCI of the Tualatin Valley
was that AT&T upgrade the entire cable TV system within three years of the grant of the
franchise renewal or by January 31, 2002. He mentioned that earlier this year, the MACC staff
noticed, in the monthly staff report from AT&T, a slow down in AT&T's cable upgrade
construction. He reported that AT&T told them that the company was having some financial
difficulties, and thus slowing down their construction activities, which it halted in February.
Mr. Crest indicated that AT&T requested that MACC consider a possible extension of their
upgrade time, due to the financial difficulties they had in obtaining the capital necessary to
continue the construction. He reviewed the process by which the informal staff discussions
became formal discussions with the Commission in June 2001, resulting in the negotiation and
finalization of a formal agreement in August 2001, followed by a public hearing and the
Commission recommendation.
Mr. Crest said that MACC recommended that its 14 jurisdictions grant the requested six-month
extension. He reviewed the specifics of the agreement, including the completion of the Public
Communications Network upgrade by January 31, 2002 (servicing schools and governments) and
the completion of all the remaining upgrade construction by July 31,2002. He indicated that
AT&T had 30 days for final proofing and performance testing of the system and another 30 days
until September 30, 2002, to make sure that the system was ready to be offered to the customers.
Mr. Crest mentioned the benchmarks included in the contract and the heavy penalties for failure
to meet them, such as a $50,000 fine (in addition to daily fines) if AT&T failed to complete the
PCN upgrade by January 31, 2002. He noted the $100,000 penalty and daily fines if AT&T
failed to complete the residential upgrade by July 31, 2002, and the reduction in the 15 -year
franchise contract by three years if AT&T did not complete the entire system upgrade by
September 30, 2002.
Mr. Crest stated that MACC studied the amended agreement carefully. lie summarized their
reasoning in reaching a recommendation to approve the agreement. Whether AT&T received the
extension or not, it could not finish the complete upgrade by the deadline of January 31, 2002.
Under the current agreement, AT&T paid $2,000 a day fines until it finished the upgrade (or
$60,000 a month), which could take many months. Without the negotiated terms in the
extension agreement, MACC had no certainty as to when AT&T would complete the upgrade.
Mr. Crest stated that the extension agreement provided some certainty that AT&T would
complete the system upgrade by the two deadline dates of July 31, 2002, and September 30,
2002, or face even more significant penalties. He held that the Commission weighed the
uncertainty against the certainty and thus recommended approval of the extension.
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15
September 18, 2001 84
Mr. Crest noted that Mr. Powel reviewed the ordinance and made some minor changes. He said
that the extension agreement was attached to the ordinance, detailing the changes that would be
made in the franchise if the MACC jurisdictions adopted the agreement. lie mentioned that all
14 jurisdictions had to approve the agreement; one `no' vote vetoed it for the other 13
jurisdictions.
Debbie Lepold, AT&T, apologized for asking the Council to spend its time on this issue. She
stated that it had not been the company's intention to miss the upgrade deadline when they
negotiated the franchise. She described the market situation that made it difficult for AT&T to
keep on schedule with the upgrade. She said that the company decided that it was crucial for it to
be proactive in approaching MACC and the jurisdictions and keeping them informed.
Ms. Lepold reported that AT&T had 35% of the upgrade done. She indicated that the
construction this year focused on completing the head end, the backbone infrastructure and hub
construction. She noted the location of the primary hub serving Lake Oswego near the
intersection of I-5 and 217. She said that, whether or not AT&T received the extension
agreement, it would continue with the upgrade because this was an important market to the
company.
Ms. Lepold observed that the extension agreement demonstrated that AT&T has put forth as
much effort as it could to provide MACC and its jurisdictions with significant hammers to give
the company the incentive to insure that it completed the upgrade by the agreed upon deadline.
She said that AT&T agreed to those incentives primarily to state to MACC and its jurisdictions
that the company was committed to meeting the deadline date. She mentioned that the senior
leadership team from marketing as well as the engineering staff worked on the benchmarks to
make sure that they were achievable, because if they were not met, the company would pay
dearly for it.
Ms. Lepold indicated that AT&T scheduled an excess of $1 billion in capital over the next year
to complete this upgrade. She mentioned that it was important to the company to move forward
on a positive footing as opposed to going into a non-compliance proceeding. Therefore, the
company decided to work proactively with MACC to provide the certainty that it and its
jurisdictions needed with respect to the completion of the upgrade.
Ms. Lepold mentioned that she has worked with Mr. Crest for 17 years in a number of different
capacities. She said that he could attest to the fact that she and her colleagues have made a
significant effort to craft an agreement that met the needs of their customers, the jurisdictions, the
company and the community in a time of significant competition. She stated that their goal was
to provide service and to get it rolled out as quickly as possible. She asked the Council to give
serious consideration to approving the extension.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mayor Hammerstad referenced Ms. Lepold's comments that the downturn in the economy and
the lack of capital were the reason why AT&T could not complete the upgrades. She asked how
AT&T could do the upgrade now that the economy might even get worse. Ms. Lepold said that
they would not be making this commitment if they did not have assurances from the highest level
at AT&T (those who allocated the capital dollars). She explained that last year they did not have
the necessary amount of capital available in their capital management program to fulfill all the
demands that existed.
Ms. Lepold explained to Mayor Hammerstad that it was not a case of AT&T having fewer
priorities this year than it did last year, rather the company completed certain other priorities,
which allowed it to reallocate the capital needed to complete the MACC upgrade, presuming that
MACC granted the extension. She mentioned the letter of credit ($2 million) and the
performance bond ($12 million) that AT&T included in order to alert all those signing the
agreement that AT&T stood to pay a significant price if it did not meet the commitment.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 15
September 18, 2001 J
Councilor Rohde questioned the two different things he was hearing: AT&T was thoroughly
committed to upgrading this region but, if MACC continued with the existing agreement and
charged AT&T $60,000 a month, then the area was not important any more. Ms. Lepold stated
that Mr. Crest said that, not her.
Ms. Lepold discussed the importance of this market to AT&T. She pointed out that the cost to
the company in committing to the agreement was more than if it went into non-compliance and
paid the $2,000 a day fine until they completed the upgrade. She mentioned the credits provided
to customers and AT&T not taking a rate increase. She emphasized that AT&T would complete
the upgrade, regardless of the agreement, but without the agreement, the completion timeframe
was open-ended; with the agreement, the jurisdictions had a commitment on a completion date
for the upgrade.
Ms. Lepold reiterated that AT&T did not want the adversarial relationship with its customers
that an open-ended violation process would most likely create. She mentioned the creation of a
history and track of a material violation for the franchise, which the company did not want. She
confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the extension agreement did benefit the customer beyond
what existed in the current franchise agreement.
Ms. Lepold discussed the Public Communications Network of the MACC jurisdictions, which
she described a one of the most sophisticated institutional networks anywhere in the country.
She mentioned that a primary commitment in the franchise agreement was to upgrade the PCN
from a co -axial base to a fully fiber -based network, and a primary commitment in the extension
was to complete the PCN upgrade by its original deadline date of January 31, 2002. She
explained that during the discussions with MACC, it became clear that the public agencies using
the PCN needed it completed as quickly as possible.
Councilor Rohde asked Ms. Lepold to describe what needed to be done in terms of physical
activities for those who had AT&T cable already coming into their houses. Ms. Lepold
explained that the bulk of the work was enhancing the backbone of the network in order to
increase capacity and to allow AT&T to deliver both analog and digital channels over the same
cable line.
Ms. Lepold said that customers would first see enhanced video services (more channels
available at a higher price). After completion of the upgrade, the customers could sign up for
high speed data service, which meant that they could connect to the Internet via cable modem
technology. She mentioned a third product, available in some markets, of offering residential
telephony in competition with the local exchange carrier.
Ms. Lepold pointed out that with this upgrade, customers would not see the same disruption as
occurred with the initial construction of the cable system (digging up roads, etc.) because AT&T
could use much of the existing co -ax based infrastructure and change out the electronics in the
network as needed in order to offer higher speeds to the home.
Councilor Rohde recalled that MACC had been confident during the franchise renewal
negotiations that the $2,000 a day fine was a significant penalty. Ile observed that now they
were hearing that $2,000 a day was a pinprick and not significant. Ile asked what assurances did
they have that the stipulated penalties this time were truly significant.
Mr. Crest recalled that, during the franchise negotiations, the takeover in progress of the small
company TO by the large company AT&T created the expectation that TCI would have
available significant capital to build the upgraded system very rapidly. Ile indicated that, as a
professional, he saw the extension agreement assurances as better than the franchise assurances
because it involved a high level of progressive fines culminating in the significant punishment of
the company losing three years off its franchise agreement.
Mr. Crest explained that cable companies leveraged bank money based on the franchise
contracts that they had with local governments. He said that a reduction of the tenn by three
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 15
September 18, 2001 86 i
years would force AT&T to amortize the costs of the upgrade over a shorter period of time and
would reduce the value of the contract in AT&T's attempts to borrow money from banks. He
emphasized that the three-year reduction was a significant penalty.
Mr. Crest cited the time that AT&T has spent discussing this issue with MACC and negotiating
the various parts of the agreement as evidence of AT&T's sincerity. He mentioned that the
AT&T negotiating team kept its bosses informed of the process as a means of gaining their
bosses' confidence that MACC was willing to work with AT&T on this issue, and that the
extension was a limited extension with significant penalties at the end.
Mr. Crest stated his confidence that AT&T would meet the benchmarks in the agreement on
schedule. He expressed his appreciation for AT&T's candor about its financial situation and its
willingness to agree to significant penalties, which were unprecedented in Mr. Crest's experience
in working with cable companies. He mentioned the good will that AT&T stood to lose in tine
MACC jurisdictions if it failed to meet the agreement.
Mr. Crest informed the Council that MACC was not interested in discussing further extensions
of the agreement; it would impose the penalties if AT&T failed to perform.
Councilor McPeak, the Lake Oswego representative at MACC, pointed out that the significant
penalties in the extension agreement would make it more expensive to AT&T not to keep the
agreement than to keep it. She observed that the investment of its available capital in this project
was now more attractive to AT&T.
Councilor McPeak reviewed the immediate benefits to the customers that AT&T has agreed to
provide until it made the upgraded product available. She mentioned a 30 cents a month credit,
no increase in the cost of the present service and a S 16 credit towards a service offered by
AT&T. She described the efforts of the negotiating teams on both sides as achieving an
extension agreement that guaranteed the upgrade and provided verifiable promises with
significant penalties if AT&T did not meet the agreement, which was the best they could hope
for.
Councilor Schoen asked if the telephony product potentially offered long distance service
bundled with local telephone service. Ms. Lepold explained that primarily the telephony
product was local service with the customer selecting his/her own long distance provider. She
described the vision of a cable drop that went to a house going into a network interface unit and
breaking into three directions: to the TV set, to the computer and to the interior wiring of the
home. She noted that it was a nascent service that they were rolling out slowly in order to
examine it.
Ms. Lepold mentioned that the capital management issues that AT&T dealt with last year largely
resulted from investing a significant amount of money into residential telephony and not having
adequate capital available to complete residential upgrades. She observed that the telephony
product, as she described it, was largely what the Telecommunications Act envisioned in the
provision of alternate services to the local exchange carrier.
Councilor Schoen observed that customers found it difficult to compare the variety of programs
available in order to know what was the best deal. Ms. Lepold commented that the ideal
situation was a consumer receiving one bill from AT&T for cable service, local dial tone, long
distance, high speed data network, and a discount because it cost less to send one bill for bundled
services than it did to send five bills for separate services. She indicated that the concept of
bundling into one bill with cross discounts in order to provide savings to the customer was
appealing to AT&T.
Councilor Turchi questioned whether the imposition of the penalties, should AT&T not meet
the extension agreement deadlines, crippled AT&T's ability to borrow money to complete the
upgrade and functioned as a disincentive instead of as an incentive. Ms. Lepold indicated that
the primary impact on the company of reducing the tenni of a franchise agreement was the public
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 15
September 18, 2001 '
relations nightmare that the company would encounter while going through a revocation
proceeding. She stated that it did not cripple the company's ability to secure the capital to
continue with the upgrade.
Ms. Lepold mentioned the second impact on the company, the creation of a negative and
demoralizing atmosphere that affected their employees, customers and jurisdictions. She said
that their goal was to manage the process proactively in light of the lack of sufficient capital they
had last year to complete the upgrade.
Ms. Lepold described the extension as providing an environment of a positive framework in
which to acknowledge the current status, to move forward, to provide certainty for PCN users,
the jurisdictions and the customers (as well as modest compensation to the customers), and to
provide MACC with significant recourse in the event the company failed to meet the deadline.
She concurred with Mr. Crest that these penalties were far in excess of the recourse to which the
company normally agreed in any franchise agreement. She said that the reason the company
agreed was because they could say with certainty that it would complete the upgrade within the
window of time outlined in the extension agreement.
Councilor Turchi said that he would vote for the agreement under those circumstances. He
commented that what he heard was that AT&T could not afford to do the upgrade before, and
now, with worsening conditions, it could afford to do it. 13e indicated that it sounded like they
had a reasonable agreement in place to accomplish the upgrade.
Ms. Lepold clarified that when AT&T acquired TCI and Media One, it made a promise to Wall
Street that it would have a certain number of cabled homes with residential telephony; therefore,
the company diverted funds from the conventional bread and butter of residential upgrades to the
deployment of telephony. Now the company was reducing the funding for residential telephony
and allocating it back to completing the residential upgrades. She confirmed to Mayor
Hammerstad that it was not that AT&T had no money, rather that the company diverted the
money to other project priorities.
Councilor Graham asked what Plan B was, should one jurisdiction veto the agreement. Mr.
Crest said that MACC had no Plan B because the staff worked hard to make Plan A work by
meeting with the jurisdictions and finding out what it took to make a hesitant jurisdiction
comfortable. He indicated that if staff could not convince a jurisdiction to delay its vote until
staff could address the jurisdiction's issues, then staff would take it back to MACC, and the
Commission would work on finding a way to help the jurisdiction see its way clear to approving
the agreement.
Mr. Crest commented that, personally, he thought it would be unfortunate if one jurisdiction did
veto the agreement, as that meant that they returned to the original franchise language and had no
certainty that the upgrade would occur in a reasonable amount of time.
Mayor Hammerstad asked if AT&T has completed the upgrade in any one MACC jurisdiction.
Mr. Crest said that most of Beaverton was done, as well as a portion of Aloha and
unincorporated Washington County and some parts of Hillsboro.
Mayor Hammerstad noted the reference to `substantial compliance' in the reporting
requirements. She asked what happened if AT&T completed the upgrade in only 12 or 13 of the
jurisdictions by the deadline and Lake Oswego was not one of them. Mr. Crest clarified that
substantial compliance dealt with the way that MACC verified that AT&T has actually
completed the system. He commented that if a few homes were out of compliance, MACC
would let AT&T fix those without declaring the upgrade incomplete at the deadline date.
Councilor Hoffman asked how long did it take to produce the negotiated compromise
agreement. Mr. Crest indicated that they began informal discussions early this year and
developed the framework over April and May. They presented the outline to the Commission in
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15
September 18, 2001
88
June for review and input, and then spent July and the first part of August hammering out the
final details. Staff presented the final agreement to the Commission in August.
Councilor Hoffman asked if Lake Oswego was the first jurisdiction MACC approached. Mr.
Crest said Lake Oswego and Hillsboro were the first two jurisdictions considering the
agreement, however Hillsboro did not require a presentation from MACC.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony.
Carolyn Jones
Ms. Jones asked if it was AT&T's policy to pass on the costs of performance bonds and
potential fines or fees to subscribers. Ms. Lepold said that it was not.
Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Sarah Hackett, MACC, referenced an earlier question about the library in clarifying that the
PCN served the Lake Oswego City library; the library would be upgraded to fiber by February 1,
2002. Mr. Crest noted that they still needed to find out exactly where the library got its Internet
service from. Ms. Hackett mentioned the possibility that the library received high speed internet
access over an ISDN line or a DSL line subsidized by the Federal Universal Service Fund, which
everyone paid on the phone bill.
Councilor McPeak moved to adopt Ordinance 2311, approving an amendment to the non-
exclusive cable television services franchise agreement granted to TCI Cablevision of
Tualatin Valley by extending; the deadline of the construction of the required system
upgrade. Councilor Hoffman seconded the motion.
Councilor Rohde thanked MACC and AT&T for taking the time to answer the Council's
questions and concerns for the community. He thanked Councilor McPeak for her work, citing
her work on behalf of the community as the reason why lie changed his skepticism and would
vote for the agreement.
Mayor Hammerstad thanked MACC for following up on the citizens who contacted the City
with telecommunications questions, which the City directed to MACC. She commented that she
thought the flyer in the cable bill explaining what has gone on would be helpful, especially if it
included the direct phone numbers for MACC.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors
Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voting; in favor. 17-01
8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
8.1 Councilor Information
Mayor Hammerstad reported that two weeks ago five Councilors attended a two and a half day
conference on sustainability in Portland. She indicated that they found it very valuable and
intended to schedule a public forum to discuss sustainability with the community, and the kinds
of things that citizens could do to sustain the community, the environment and the livability of
Lake Oswego. She said that each Councilor would give only a brief report tonight.
Councilor Graham reviewed the goal of the forum and the goals of sustainability. She said that
she attended seminars revolving around businesses, both small and large, working towards
sustainability. She listed the common steps and the common stumbling blocks in working
towards sustainability that she identified from the various presentations. She described the basic
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 15
September 18, 2001 89
idea that she heard at the conference: one person can make a difference. She stated her belief
that a community like Lake Oswego could make a difference as well.
Councilor McPeak spoke to City government having a role in public education on
sustainability. She mentioned the need for an easily understandable definition of sustainability
as part of the education process, and relayed two examples of definitions she heard at the
conference. She described the Oregon Sustainability Act of 2001 as a positive step.
Councilor McPeak discussed the idea of `green buildings' (buildings that left a significantly
lower ecological footprint), as something that the City government might consider. She pointed
out that, over a building's lifetime, a green building would pay for the extra upfront costs of
building it green, which was something to remember during the annual government budget cycle.
She observed that in the private market builders had to figure out how to make green buildings
profitable.
Councilor McPeak mentioned specific ideas she heard at the conference, including putting sod
roofs on buildings and the State Facilities Division training teams to help cities provide a green
inspection capability. She proposed that the Council address the idea of green inspections as
soon as possible.
Councilor Rohde stated that that it was a valuable conference with an overwhelming amount of
in formation presented. He described the sustainability movement as focusing on increasing
efficiencies, conserving resources and guaranteeing long-term prosperity. He noted that the
interest in prosperity was an important aspect of this movement that had been absent from earlier
green movements.
Councilor Rohde speculated what the U.S. could accomplish if it concentrated its resources on a
sustainability initiative, similar to President Kennedy's pledge to put a man on the moon in 10
years, in which the country pledged to develop the energy resources and materials that would
eliminate the need for oil in 10 years. He said that he was looking forward to the community
discussion of what they could do to improve sustainability and improve their long-term
prosperity. He encouraged the citizens to participate in the sustainability round table.
Councilor Turchi seconded the comments already made. He said that, of the different meetings
he attended, he found the one on `asset mapping' the most interesting. He explained that asset
mapping was identifying the resources in the community and looking at how to bring those
resources together to focus on the question of sustainability, which he thought had possibilities
for Lake Oswego in the future. He described the conference as informative and forward-looking.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that she attended a session on the Oregon Sustainability Act.
She read the 10 objectives listed in the Act, which state agencies were to enable and encourage
local communities to achieve. She described the list as encapsulating the State's direction and
providing the community with guidelines for where it would be going if it pursued a policy of
sustainability.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that the objectives covered a broad spectrum of activities that the
community and the City could make plans to achieve. She indicated that the Council hoped that
the community forum presentation on the various aspects of sustainability would also yield
citizen feedback on sustainability and on what Lake Oswego's priorities should be, if the Council
pursued policies of sustainability.
8.1.1 Joint Use Library Task Force Revised Charge Statement
Mayor Hammerstad reported that, with both the Council and the School Board making
revisions to the draft charge statement, they would meet to work out a document that each
agency could pass at its next meeting. She mentioned that the Council revisions included useful
suggestions from the Library Advisory Board. She encouraged all interested citizens to obtain a
copy of the charge statement, once it was adopted, and an application for the task force. She
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 15
September 18, 2001
90
indicated that the City would mail the charge statement to those who submitted applications
before adoption of the charge statement.
8.1.2 Formation of Clackamas County Coordinating Committee
Councilor McPeak moved to adopt the bylaws and to appoint the Mayor as the Lake
Oswego representative and Councilor Rohde as the alternate. Councilor Turchi seconded
the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad,
Councilors Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voting; in favor. 17-01
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and Intergovernmental
Committees
8.2.1 Regional Water Providers Consortium
Councilor McPeak reviewed the formation, membership and purpose of the Consortium. She
reported that at the September meeting they discussed the first five-year update of the regional
water supply plan. She said that they heard a report from Portland Commissioner Eric Sten on
his initiative to form a regional water supply and transmission agency, in which the current
buyers of wholesale water from the Portland Water Bureau would become equity partners, rather
than simply customers. She mentioned that Commissioner Sten had support from Metro and
nine cities or water districts in the Metro area, including Portland.
Councilor McPeak mentioned the ongoing program to encourage water conservation: Water —
Be Resourceful With It. She gave the web address (conserveh20.org) for more information. She
described Clackamas River Water's new voluntary program of waterline insurance (repairs and
replacement between the water meter and the home) for $2 a month.
Councilor McPeak reported that the Consortium underspent its FY 2001 budget by $73,000; the
members were considering a dues reduction for FY 2002/03
8.2.2 Announcements
Councilor Graham reminded the community about the Great Adult Conununity Center Estate
Sale on October 13. She said that anyone interested in donating antiques and collectibles to the
Center should contact Rachel Hoffman at the Center.
Councilor Graham announced that the Library Advisory Board, with assistance and grants from
the Friends of the Library, has reinstituted First Tuesdays at the library, a music program from
7:00 to 8:30 p.m. She indicated that the first performance would be on October 2 with Sally
Harmon and Frank Bruner, jazz musicians. She mentioned the calligraphy exhibit than would be
up at the library at the same time.
Councilor Graham drew attention to the Unsung Heroes program, instituted by the City to
recognize those people in the community who have done something good and wonderful but no
one ever thanked them publicly. She mentioned that the City was in the process of appointing a
task force to make the first selections. She noted that nomination forms were available
throughout the city.
8.2.3 3 PACT
Councilor Rohde reported that, after significant debate, JPACT decided to fully fund the
Springwater Corridor bike project out of the available federal funds, to half-fund the Nyberg
Road overcrossing, and to aggressively seek the other half through the new State transportation
bonding program. fie mentioned that, at the last minute, Washington County withdrew its
request for funding for its Cornell Road boulevard project because the $500,000 it received out
of its $2 million project request was not enough to do the project. He said that JPACT decided to
allocate that money to the Nyberg Road overcrossing, thus reducing the amount requested from
the state and likely insuring its success in achieving funding.
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15
September 18, 2001
Councilor Rohde reported that JPACT allocated funding for a full feasibility study of the
Willamette Shore Rail Line as a commuter option. He noted that JPACT, despite the competitive
interests, did pass the funding allocations unanimously in its tradition of coming to consensus.
Mayor Hammerstad thanked Councilor Rohde on behalf of the Council for his hard work on
JPACT on behalf of Lake Oswego.
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
Mr. Schmitz announced that paving has begun for the Old River Road pathway and should be
completed in a couple weeks, after which landscaping would commence.
Mr. Schmitz reported that he received a call from the County Executive this morning that the
County Board was willing to front the money for the Rivergrove sewer project, per the Council's
request at their joint meeting. He mentioned that staff would work out a repayment schedule
over time and prepare an ORS agreement to move forward on this project. Mayor Hammerstad
commented that she and Councilor Rohde attending the Timothy Lake retreat helped achieve this
because they were able to say the right things at the right time.
Mr. Schmitz thanked the School District and Superintendent Bill Korach for the approval of an
easement at Oak Creek School, which the City needed for a project. He mentioned that the City
would ratify the agreement at its next meeting.
Mr. Schmitz announced that the Development Review Commission and Gramor would meet
here toworrow night at 6 p.m. for a work session on plans for Block 138.
Mr. Schmitz thanked the Council for its thank you to staff for its work last week in response to
the East Coast terrorist attacks. He recounted what the City staff did to provide a sense of
security, as well as actual security, to the citizens of the community in the first few days
following the attacks.
Mr. Schmitz said that within one hour of when the plane hit the second tower in New York City,
he met with the command staff of the police department. In the meeting, they called the director
of maintenance services and instructed him to take precautionary measures at certain City
facilities, such as the refueling station.
Mr. Schmitz said that Chief Bicart left the meeting to meet with the School Superintendent; as a
result, for the next several days, the City had police patrols in the schools to give the students a
sense of security. He mentioned that he and Superintendent Korach spoke together three times
on Tuesday and several times on Wednesday, providing mutual assistance and sharing of assets.
as a result, mentioned the regularly scheduled morning and afternoon meetings with the
command staff. He reviewed the results of the Tuesday afternoon meeting, which the Fire Chief
and Maintenance Services Director attended; the maintenance services staff was assigned to
assist the police department with patrols on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings to
watch the City's public facilities and infrastructure. He noted that, in addition, the Fire Chief
called in several CERT volunteers to help with the protection and monitoring of City Hall.
9.2 City Attorney
10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8;25 p.m.
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 15
September 18, 2001
91,11,
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Minutes
September 18, 2001
Respectfully submitted,
2f�� -1 -
Robyn Chri tie
City Recorder
Page 15 of 15
931
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT LU 01-
0029, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS TO GOAL
12, TRANSPORTATION, FIGURE 19,-- TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, RELATING TO PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED BY THE BRYANT ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve LU 01-0029 (Ordinance 2312).
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
Approx. $1.3 million
STAFF COST: N/A
BUDGETED:
1,40
FUNDING SOURCE:
SDCs or new funding
source
ATTACHMENTS: PUBLISHED
Heisler Council Report with NOTICES
Attachments (Date)October 4,
2001
Signoff/date
Ordinance no.: 2312
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
44V -*;P- -S-z- . 't _
C MUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY kANAGER
DIRECTOR
10 _
Signdff/date
'case files/200I/LU 0 1 -0029,Council Cover Memo
oar
// 6'-f (-)/
Signoff/date
95
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manag�6e
SUBJECT: LU 01-0029, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Goal 12,
Transportation Chapter, Figure 19, Transportation Public Facilities
Plan, Relating to Projects Recommended by the Bryant Road
Corridor Plan (Ordinance 2312)
DATE: October 1, 2001
:ACTION:
Consider for adoption, the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of LU 01-0029,
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Goal 12, Figure 19, Transportation Public Facilities
Plan, resulting from the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study. Exhibit F-1 illustrates the
proposed changes. Proposed Ordinance 2312 is found in Exhibit F-4.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission voted to approve LU 01-0029 at its September 10, 2001 meeting
(Findings, Exhibit B; Minutes, Exhibit C; Staff Report, Exhibit D). The changes are as a result
of the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, a refinement study completed by the City in
2001, and accepted by the City Council on May 1, 2001 (summary, Exhibit F-3). Currently a
two-lane facility, the existing Transportation Improvement Plan calls for a continuous center turn
lane on Bryant Road from Boones Ferry to Lakeview Blvd. The corridor study outlines a
preferred alternative for the Bryant Road corridor, consisting of intersection improvements, bike
lanes, sidewalks and traffic signals at Bryant and Lakeview and at Bryant and Upper. Fewer
trees will be displaced by this alternative, fewer property impacts will occur and less square
footage of natural resources will be disturbed, than with the three -lane alternative currently in the
PFP. No testimony was received from the public at the Planning Commission.
RECOMMEND TION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Public
Facility Plan text amendments to the City Council.
CTs'
EXHIBITS:
A. Notice of Appeal (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
B. Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU O1-0029-1436 dated
September 24, 2001
C. Minutes of September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2001
E. Graphics/Plans
E-1. Aerial Photo of Alternative 2A, recommended improvements
F. Written Materials
F-1. Proposed Amendments to Transportation Improvement Program
F-2 Existing Transportation Improvement Program (Figure 19 of
Comprehensive Plan)
F-3 Bryant Road Transportation Corridor Study, summary of Long -Term
Alternative Analysis (Entire study is available at City Hall in the Planning
Department for review)
F-4 Proposed Ordinance 2312
G. Letters
G-1
Neither for Nor Against (None)
G-100
In Favor (None)
G-200
Opposed (None)
98
4
4
z
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PUBLIC )
FACILITY PLAN, TRANSPORTATION )
12MPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1-10 YEARS, )
BRYANT ROAD FROM LAKEVIEW BLVD. )
TO BOONES FERRY
NATURE OF APPLICATION
APPROWED
LU 01-0029 - 1436
(CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
A request by the City of Lake Oswego to amend the Public Facility Plan, Transportation
Improvement Program 1-10 years, which indicates widening of Bryant Road from Lakeview Blvd. to
Boones Ferry to 3 lanes. The Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, which has been accepted
by City Council, recommends intersection and signalization improvements rather than widening of
the Corridor to 3 lanes. This amendment will reflect the preferred alternative for this Corridor.
Projects amended include T-2, T-5, T-8, P-40, B- 16 and the addition of a new project B -16A.
A Legislative Amendment to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code to require that a minimum density is
achieved when land divisions or new developments are proposed in residential zones.
HEARINI GS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
September 10, 2001.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A
6 B
:> C
Page 1
City of Lake Oswego Development Code
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 12: Transportation
Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional
Planning Regional Planning Requirements
OAR 660-12
OAR 660-11
EXHIBIT B
005
LU 01-0029 - 1436
D. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies
Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policies 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION
6 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 01-0029 is in compliance with all applicable
criteria.
S
9
o FINDINGS AND REASONS
7
12 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated August 28, 2001, on LU 01-0029
o (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
t9 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 01-0029 be approved by the City
Council.
_i I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
P
DATED this 24th day of September 2001.
/Daniel Vizzini, Chair
=2 Planning Commission
-6 Iris Treinen_-----_—�--
- Senior Secretary
3�
3�
Page 2
a
ATTEST:
3
PRELIMINARY DECISION - September 10, 2001
4
r
AYES:
Edwards, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster
6
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
s
ABSENT:
Groznik
9
RECUSE:
None
1
ADOPT_I.ON OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - September 24 2001
12
13
AYES:
Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Waring Webster
i
NOES:
None
_
ABSTAIN:
None
6
ABSENT:
Sandblast, Vizzini
'
RECUSE:
None
007
LU 01.0029 - 1436 1 (!
Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing regarding the above-described legislative
proposal and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the
Commissioners to report any conflicts of interest related to the application. None were
reported. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, requested the hearing be continued to
September 24, 2001 in order to allow the staff to continue to consider further changes to
the proposal. She explained they were concerned the current language might be too
broad. She noted that although Metro desired to see connectivity requirements imposed
whenever a street was created, the currently proposed standard imposed the
requirements any time a lot of a certain size was created. She said a revised draft might
provide that other factors - such as how many lots would be served or changes in travel
distance - were to be considered before a requirement to plan a residential access way
was imposed. She reported the staff had recently discussed the proposal with Metro
representatives and with a property owner.
Public Testimony
James llinzdel, 1250 Wells Street, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97034, testified he had
met with the staff to discuss his concerns earlier that day. He questioned whether it was
realistic to require a pathway to serve bicyclists in an R-15 Zone. He wanted to know
what other jurisdictions imposed such a requirement. He indicated he believed
provisions in the proposal regarding access through Sensitive Lands were in conflict
with the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He requested that the definitions of "full" and
"partial" street be clarified. He asked if the City endorsed the "skinny streets" concept.
He asked if the shared driveway that was permitted under the Flag Lot Ordinance would
be permitted under the proposed ordinance. He wanted to know if the proposed
ordinance would not apply, or if some other distance would be applied if he could not
meet either the 530 -foot or the 330 -foot distance standards. He said he looked forward
to reading the future staff report.
Commissioner Johnson moved to continue the hearing of LU 00-0015 (A) to
September 24, 2001, based on the staff request. Commissioner Sandblast seconded
the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners
Johnson, Sandblast, Waring and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Groznik was not
present for the vote. There were no votes against.
LU 01-0029, a request by the City of Lake Oswego to amend the Public Facility Plan,
Transportation Improvement Program 1-10 years, which indicates widening of Bryant
Road from Lakeview Blvd. to Boones Ferry to 3 lanes. The Bryant Road Corridor
Transportation Study, which has been accepted by City Council, recommends
intersection and signalization improvements rather than widening of the Corridor to 3
lanes. This amendment will reflect the preferred alternative for this Corridor. Projects
City of Lake Oswego Planning Conunission 009
09 EXHIBIT C Page 5 of 9
Minutes of September 113, 1-001
1.0 :i
amended include T-2, T-5, T-8, P-40, B-16 and the addition of a new project B-1611.
Staff Coordinator is Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager,
Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to
be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any conflicts of interest related to
the application.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained the proposal would amend
the Transportation Chapter of the Public Facility Plan that listed pedestrian, bicycle,
transit and roadway projects and the proposal stemmed from the Bryant Corridor Plan
that had been adopted by the City Council. She clarified that the biggest change to the
corridor was that it would feature two lanes and a center turn lane instead of three
continuous lanes and some intersection improvements. She summarized the newly
adopted plan would have fewer impacts on trees, smaller impacts on Lamont Springs
natural area, and would impact a smaller area of properties in the corridor.
Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer, Engineering Department, related that 2020
findings projected that we could function with two lanes at Lakeview, but growth in
traffic volume in the area would require a future left turn lane in order to maintain level
of service there. He explained that the first phase of the project would include
installation of signals at the intersections of Bryant Road with Upper Drive and
Lakeview. The next phase would include construction of a left turn lane onto Lakeview.
Chair Vizzini recalled his experience with congested traffic in the area of the accesses to
the Lakeview Cleaners and Baskin & Robbins store. Chair Vizzini and Commissioner
Johnson suggested that left turns be prohibited at the Bryant Road accesses to the
shopping areas or that access there be closed. Mr. Tushner agreed those accesses were
close enough to the intersection of Bryant Road and Boones Ferry Road to cause
congestion, but he anticipated that such a change in a developed area would be
extremely difficult to accomplish at this time, and he advised that if the restrictions were
imposed, they could only be imposed during peak hours (without a physical barrier in
place) and drivers would create their own alternatives, such as turning around in
driveways. Commissioner Sandblast suggested the two accesses be lined up and moved
further away from the Boones Ferry Road intersection. Mr. Tushner clarified for the
Commissioners that the Capital Improvement Plan budgeted $650,000 for the corridor
study (including engineering studies) and the two signals. He anticipated construction
would start in early 2002. He confirmed that a funding source had not yet been
identified to pay for the project's second phase, which included right of way widening,
the new left turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks.
Public Testimonv
None.
Chair Vizzini closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commissionn Page 6 of 9
Minutes of September 10, 2001 V 1011
Deliberations
Commissioner Sandblast moved to recommend that the City Council approve LU
01-0029, as recommended by the staff. Commissioner Edwards seconded the
motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners
Johnson, Sandblast, Waring and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Groznik was not
present. There were no votes against.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Road Utility Fee
The staff reported that a monthly utility fee had been proposed to provide the $1.2
million per year the City spent on overlays and seal coats to preserve and protect
roadways. They noted the Cities of Portland and Tualatin had imposed such a fee, but
the City of Portland had decided to eliminate it. Ms. Heisler reported that the proposal
had recently been presented to the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Committee
(LONAC) and she offered to ask the City Engineer to report LONAC's comments at the
next Planning Commission meeting.
LU 00-0018 (A) — Modal Split Targets - Findings, Conclusions and Order
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve LU 00-0018 (A)-1434, Modal Split
Targets - Findings, Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Waring seconded the
motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Edwards, Johnson, Waring
and Webster voting yes. Commissioner Sandblast recused himself from the vote and
Commissioner Groznik .vas not present. There were no votes against.
LU 00-0027 — East End Commercial District Housing Amendment - Findings,
Conclusions and Order
Commissioner Edwards moved to approve LU 01-0027-1432, East End
Commercial District Housing Amendment - Findings, Conclusions and Order..
Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini and
Commissioners Edwards, Johnson, Waring and Webster voting yes. Commissioner
Sandblast recused himself from the vote and Commissioner Groznik was not present.
Rolling Agenda Review
Infill Development
The staff reported that the City Council was to hold a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission, the Development Review Commission, and the Infill
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0 i 1
Minutes of September 10, 2001
Page 7 of 9 l `
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANTS:
City of Lake Oswego
PROPERTY OWNERS:
N/A
LOCATION:
Bryant Road between Boones Ferry and
Childs Road
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
All
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
Various
1. APPLICANT REQUEST
FILE NO.:
LU 01-0029
STAFF:
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
DATE OF REPORT:
August 28, 2001
DATE OF HEARING:
September 10, 2001
ZONING DESIGNATION
Various
The City of Lake Oswego requests a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendmcnt to Goal 12,
Transportation Chapter, Figure 19, Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement
Program. The changes requested are as a result of the Bryant Road Corridor Transportation
Study, which was a refinement study completed by the City of Lake Oswego in 2001,
subsequent to the City's adoption of its Transportation System Plan (TSP). Requested project
amendments include those in the chart on the following page as well as in Exhibit F-1.
Existing TSP project are found in Exhibit F-2. Exhibit E -I contains an aerial map illustrating
the proposed improvements.
013
EXHIBIT D
e full Bryant Road Corridor Trans
is available at City Hall in the Plannin
-Page l of 6, LU 01-0029, Transportation Public Facility Plan Amendments for Bryant Road Corridor
Planning Commission Staff Report
for review.
107
Suggested additions appear in bold and underline. Proposed delulimis are struck.
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Pro ram 1-10 Years
Niap #
Location
Description
Estimated
Potential
Cost (1997$)
Funding
Source
T-2
Bryant Road/Lakeview I#:
Boulevard
Turn lanes, upgrade Installation of a traffic
signal minor intersection improvements
$200;000
$325,000-'_
SDC
Lakeview/Boones Ferry
and acquire necessary rights-of-wav_
Does not
Road
include rip -ht -
3-162
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
of -way cost
SDC, NLFS
T-5
Bryant Rd, Lakeview
Boulevard to Boones
Widen to three lanes Add bike lanes and
sidewalks on both sides, reconstruction of
61,189;9A0
$1,326,0003
SDC
NLFS
the at -grade railroad crossine, add a
Boulevard and Boones
Ferry Road
Does not
Ferry Road
north/southbound left turn lane at
include right -
B-16
Bryant Road, between
Lakeview, and acquire necessary rights -of-
of -way cost)
SDC
wa v. Reference proiects P-40 and B-16
Lakeview and Childs
_
T -Fs
Bryant Road/Upper Drive
Installation of a tTraffic ssignal, minor
intersection improvements and acquire38$
$12s;0AA
5,000'
SDC
necessary rights-of-way
Does not
include right-
of-wa cost
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Pro ram 11-20 Years
Map #
Location
Description
Est. Cost
Potential
(1997$)
Funding
Source
P-40-'
Bryant Rd between
Sidewalks on both west -sides
$85,000
SDC, NLFS
Lakeview/Boones Ferry
See T-5
Road
3-162
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
$2321008
SDC, NLFS
Childs Lakeview
See T-5
Boulevard and Boones
Ferry Road
B-16
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
SDC
Al
Lakeview and Childs
NLFS
Road
014
These projects resulted from the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Plan, a refinement study completed in 2001, which identified
a preferred plan for the Boone Ferry Road corridor.
Estimated cost in 2001$.
Page 2 of 6, LU 01-0029, Transportation Public Facility Plan Amendments for Bryant Road Corridor (QPlamsing Commission Staff Report 106
H. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 12: Transportation
C. :applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional
Planning Regional Planning Requirements
OAR 660-12
OAR 660-11
D. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies
Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policies 1 and 2.
III. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter was updated in 1997 in order to comply
with OAR 660-11, Public Facility Planning and OAR 660-12, Transportation Planning. Following
a thorough review of the City's existing transportation conditions, examination of future growth
and needs and an alternatives analysis, the community developed a preferred alternative and
developed a corresponding project list which would provide needed facilities for the next 20 years.
In the 1997 PFP, several projects were identified for Bryant Road, including widening it to three
lanes (it is currently a two-lane facility) to permit a continuous center turn lane and sidewalks on
one side of the street. The Bryant Road Transportation Corridor Study was undertaken to identify
a preferred corridor plan for Bryant Road from Boones Ferry Road to Lakeview Blvd. Bryant
Road is currently a narrow two-lane roadway with a shared bicycle -pedestrian path on the east side
of the roadway. During the PM peak hour, significant congestion occurs at the Bryant
Road/Lakeview Blvd intersection with vehicle queuing that extends south to Boone Ferry Road.
The AM peak hour vehicle queuing at the Bryant Road/Upper Drive intersection extends south to
the railroad tracks. The vehicle congestion along Bryant Road today creates excessive delays,
increases travel times and causes some traffic to divert to local streets.
The preferred corridor plan, which was presented to and accepted by the City Council on May 1,
2001, is summarized in Exhibit F-3. The preferred plan provides for improved safety, traffic
mobility, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and less right-of-way and vegetation impact than the
three -lane alternative currently in the PFP.
TV. FINDINGS:
A. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
A legislative decision is generally a policy decision that is up to the discretion of the
City Council, but shall: 015
Page 3 of 6, LU 01-0029, Transportation Public Facility Plan Amendments for Bryant Road Corridor (0) l G �,
Planning Commission Staff Report
1. Comply with any applicable state law;
2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule
adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197,
3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning! co(le, Development Code
or Development Standards, comply with any applicable provisions of the Lake
Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Although these proposed changes are not subject to 49.60.1505(3), above, since they are not
amendments to implementing standards, this report includes applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies for purposes of illustrating how these proposed amendments are consistent with and/or
implement the City's acknowledged comprehensive plan policies.
B. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule
adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197.
1) Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facility Planning. This Goal requires cities to
develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve
as a framework for development. The City's existing PFP for transportation facilities was
developed based on a general, city-wide approach which provided for all modes of
transportation to meet current and long term needs, per this planning goal. The proposed
refinement of some of these projects is based on a more in-depth study, which better
addresses objectives such as preservation of trees and other vegetation and minimizing
disturbance of the right of way, while also providing for increased traffic safety and
accessibility within the corridor.
2) Goal 11, Public Facilities Planning Administrative Rule 660-11. This rule sets out the
approach to public facilities planning that city's are to follow. It requires facility plans for
many types of systems, including transportation. The proposed amendments comply with
the instructions in the Rule in that the Bryant Corridor Plan contains an inventory and
general assessment of the condition of the corridor, project descriptions, rough cost
estimates, maps and written descriptions and timing. These changes also comply with the
adoption and amendment procedures set out in 660-11-045(2) which states: Certain
public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding.
These proposed changes may be categorized, according to the Rule, under 660-11-045(4).
This section states that Land use amendments are those modifications or amendments
to the list, location or provider of public facility projects, which significantly impact a
public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan and which do not qualify
under 660-11-045(3)(x) or (b). Amendments made pursuant to this subsection are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal provisions accorded
"land use decisions" in ORS Chapter 197 and those set forth in OAR 660 Division 18.
The procedures by which the City is requesting this change fall within this category.
of 6, LU 01-0029, Transportation Public Facility Plan Amendments for Bryant Road Corridor
-.rang Commission Staff Report i 1 t
3) Statewide Planning Goal 12 and Transportation Administrative Rule, OAR 660-12.
This goal and its implementing rule require cities to provide and encourage a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system. Cities must accomplish this by reviewing
various alternatives to providing transportation within their community. The Bryant Road
Corridor Plan, from which the subject recommendations are made, reviewed three "action"
alternatives and a "no -build" alternative. Based upon the criteria set out for the study, the
preferred plan best met the roadway capacity/safety, bicycle/pedestrian facility, right-of-
way impacts and future transportation needs. Plan alternatives are summarized in Exhibit
F-3.
4) Comply with any Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies:
GOAL 12, Transportation, Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination Policy 1
Lake Oswego shall develop a Comprehensive Transportation System Plan (TSP) in
conjunction with Clackamas County and adjacent counties where appropriate, the
State of Oregon, Tri -Met and Metro for the area within the City's Urban Services
Boundary. The Comprehensive Transportation System Plan shall:
a. Be consistent with land use designations identified within the Lake Oswego
Comprehensive Plan
b. Identify the location of arterial and collector streets, bicycle paths and
pedestrian ways and public transit facilities,
C. Identify the major street construction projects required to accommodate
anticipated development and to address public safety issues,
d. Propose funding mechanisms and related policies necessary to implement
identified projects;
The proposed changes to the PFP are consistent with land use designations identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. The model used to analyze trip generation for purposes of this study,
used existing land uses and anticipated growth in households and employment. The
proposed changes address bicycle paths and pedestrian ways for this Major Collector
Street, and also identifies the major construction projects required to accommodate
anticipated development and address public safety issues. This proposal also suggests
funding mechanisms to implement the projects outlined.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Public Facilities Plan for Transportation, are in
compliance with applicable state laws and Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules and
City Comprehensive Plan policies.
V7. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of these proposed
Comprehensive Plan, PFP text amendments to the City Council.
017
Page 5 of 6, LU 01-0029, Transportation Public Facility Plan Amendments for Bryant Road Corridor
Planning Commission Staff Report 1
EXHIBITS:
A. Notice of Appeal (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
B. Findings, Conclusions and Order (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
C. Minutes (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
D. Staff Reports (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
E. Graphics/Plans
E-1. Aerial Photo of Alternative 2A, recommended improvements
F. Written Materials
F-1. Proposed Amendments to Transportation Improvement Program
F-2 Existing Transportation Improvement Program (Figure 19 of Comprehensive Plan)
F-3 Bryant Road Transportation Corridor Study, summary of Long -Term Alternative
Analysis (Entire study is available at City Hall in the Planning Department for
review)
G. Letters
G-1
Neither for Nor Against (None)
G-100
In Favor (None)
G-200
Opposed (None)
018
Page 6 of 6, LU 01-0029, Transportation Public Facility Plan Amendments for Bryant Road Corridor
Planning Commission Staff Report
112
1 7we
iA
IV
,
«tom _, x
o t
00
EXHIBIT E-1
Y `
• I �@
x..
r�
i
e
r►y 4 �,.".r,
-
� 3
y 1
1,
F
v
r1
�L T�
Wilm
1
"r
4
;r
/yam• � ` / - 1[ ``� /i , ,�+/} . S'
�•�"' i 4\ '��- \1\ � 111000 \
i'
sir \
Alo
CUANEW
-
in
Moro
7` ° i t ::; ! � o-•.3 � ',� #►• I � � � \ — N--
' � ' �IJs ..�1!Ztmi r pV9E{xgp.•n . -•._ T:a + _ _ �___. __ _ - �\ .'
:ate. ` �tl 12
'. `.��'° ,s.- � ; ';a : .k}... _,4 ...., • . "R:',.,Y+ :>! • �'--i'FYi»Y�+M _C'r •.1'}T � • _ y� Nri<,ort. ry... "•17F.+'.4•�^�'M
, b. •
iM� •
• a yar
„-'"�. a- .. .r �`_",".. •,..'�i�-:. _. -, �.. L.x � :; ' r. � • . - .. �y .....i"... 3 � R7 1 .J.A' 'a`•.:�-^ r '7,� J � 4' .y ��.r "r:. y
.,..: ` ., 4 .. .• ti Y• i ..,. / � �\,a ,� . .+'� ss` .. • y . _ _ •\ Cno .n - 13` ,
{"J by 44
�
�
•
1
R t
t� •I 4 ./I�i • j l vF _ .. 1
• ` jaz+�"ly., �'- 4'rn"'a � ^-•-• 4 7"r�3v:;y r, �► • � \ -- f ' . � tt \\ � .,-• � • � _ •^ \t/.
I�
. f �
r i a
` , nr 'rl / utuk nr, 'M1a fes' ,K •"^..�... - +'.i �••'
t
Y
� � .� 39 ��� ate• �L �� � 4y., ,"f � ��
r ,x
1 S3
m
I—A
t
� �f3�,,j is is �"i,F„�,{ 'r • a � ,�� � t•� ..,.: ��
\ t (may
'ir \
22
7.4
w
�`1 3. r
.y •-... -.. J 9Fv � �`��
1
Ae
43
�-• \..'" .ate ,�.. �ir.�iir"'� w.
J 99�� .•.:• r�i1 �\ ' a � i.. q� �".�K ' r.,,c F.' • ��' "J+"n si
51
� /- � ♦y # W .fes f' .•:'` .1 _ `\� �'pj-, � _
\ APPROX. 15" 'TREES WITH ���
•' \ / TRUNKS SS DIAMETER � \ '*- ro
a�
`\ N(15 TREES TO \ ;
\ BE REMOVED) < 1 s
< 0 7•
10
uA
Tr! ...
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Pro ram 1-10 Years
Map #
Location
Description
Estimated Cost
Potential
(1997$)
Funding
Source
Source
T-2
Bryant Road/Lakeview 1#
Boulevard
Taim lanes, upgfade Installation of a
traffic signal, minor intersection
$29(),00o
$325,0003 (Does not
SDC
Lakeview/Boones Ferry
improvements and acquire necessary
include right-of-
riehts-of-way
wav cost
B-161
r.5-
Bryant Rd, Lakeview
Boulevard to Boones
Add bike lanes and
sidewalks on both sides, reconstruction
$1,100,000
$1,326,0003 (Does
SDC
NLFS
of the at-erade railroad crossing, add a
Ferry Road
not include rieht-
north/southbound left turn lane at
Lakeview, and acquire necessary
of -way cost)
Ferry Road
rielits-of-way. (Reference twoiects P40
B-16
and I3-16)_
Bike lanes on both sides
SDC
T_q
Bryant Road/Upper Drive
Installation of a tTraffic sSignal, minor
intersection improvements and
$420,000
$_385,0003 (Does not
SDC
Road
acquire necessary rights-of-wav
include right-of-
Wav cost
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Itnnrovement Propram 11-2B Wmrs
Map #
Location
Description
Est. Cost (1997$)
Potential
Funding
Source
P-401
Bryant Rd between
Sidewalks on both west sides
$83;000
SDC, NLFS
Lakeview/Boones Ferry
See T-5
Road
B-161
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
$232;900
SDC, NLFS
Childs Lakeview
See T-5
Boulevard and Booties
Ferry Road
B-16
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
SDC
Lakeview and Childs
NLFS
Road
These projects resulted from the Booties Ferry Road Corridor Plan, a refinement study completed in 2001,
which identified a preferred plan for the Boone Ferry Road corridor.
Estimated cost in 2001 S
021
EXHIBIT F-1
(LU 01-0029)
Goal 12 Transportation
❑ Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facffities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 1-10 Years
M2P#
location Description
7Estfirnaied
Cost
9970*
Potential
Funding
Source
T 1
Sa NB left tum lane, realigfi Tenviriger approach,
signal
S.5-9 s
S,SDC
1'-2
Bryant RoidLakview Drive Tuan tares, up�ade ttal rc s1E l
SDC
7-3
Cotrtry Club Rmid/C Ave !Jam Mut. BW Intersection imt enrrts
50
SDC
T-4
Booms Ferry Road -Kruse Way, to Ntdrm Widen to 5 lanes" crckidiV bice lanes and adequate
$,2657,000
SDC
T -c
to Bowes Ferry Widen to three lanes
S1, l M000
SDC
T-6
Booms Ferry RoadXnse Way (98.99 Budget) Siad NB left tum lane
SDC, C
1 T-7
Bowes Fem Road/Bryam Rd Add spit signal timing replace bops
$x,000
SDC
Bryant Drive s
S I X000
SDC
T-9
State Street (Hwy. TgN&MVrff Road Intersection improvements
T1 M-000
SDC,S
T-10
State Street (Hwy. 43)/lvfcVey Avenue
INB�SD left turn Janes, upgrade traffic slurp. Widen
51300;000
SDCS
7-11 A Avenue - State Street to 3rd Avenue Road recd structiau streetscape improvements
$3,100,000
LORA, SIX:
T-12 Jean Road/Pi dngton Left tum lames; traffic sigatl
X00000
SDC
T-13 htVey Avemx/ComcH Street Left turn lane on McVey, traffic signal
$250
SDC
T-14 : NiNey Avenu/Cricksm St (98-99 Budget) Left tun lane on McVey
150
SIX
T- 15 Kruse Way - Kruse Oaks Bhd to BwW Rd (981 Signal irtercortiect
99 Budget)
$25,000
SDC,C
T-16 : Kruse Way - Bangy Rd to Kase Oaks Blvd \k -den roadway to 6 lanes as part of 1-5/ 217 uterchange
niprovemetts
$1,000,000
SDC S
T-17 IStftbrd Road/Overlook Dr.
Left turn lanes, traffic sigrtl
SM,000
SDC
T-18 Kerr Parkway/Tou dstom Dr.
Northbound left turn lane, traffic sigtal
$550
SDC
T-19
01&6, Road Bridge (98.99 Budget)
Recor struct/widen bridge with pedcsniatvNw facilities
15,
C, S
5,000
SDC;
T-20
l
1
Intersection of 1-5, 217 and Kruse Way
Reconstruction of irterchar>ge to provide for free flM*
north and south bond roDwarrts and direct carnection of
of Kruse Way to I Ivvy. 217, tow phases
000,000
S
T-21 1,Booms Ferry and Suiset Drive
1
Ittersa tion hTrovemerus to accommodate four way
tuning rmv,erne s and devebprnent of a co rrnercial
street to acccrrimcdate development of the West Lake
Gone Design District'
T-22 ! Booms Ferry Road Pla wig and Design
100 ,000
T-23 Traffic Cab** Feasrtslity Stutir• lint mapped)
T-24 Traffic Cahting - Locations to be deternrin cd (not )
I
1,SDQ-&F•S
Subtotal
.561,041,000 1
---
Gaff esrunstes wtst for this project at $700,000 Ordinance 2188 did not specify associated costs or potential fu '
023 GOAL 1 EXHIBIT F-2 2�2ai
(LU 01-0029)
Goa/ 12 Transportation
:3 Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan! Trnnsnnrtatinn ImnrnvPmPnt Prnor-Am' tt_tn v_„»..
V ow i
12-26 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I I �')
%Up #
Location
Descri pt! on
Estimated Cost
Potential
Fundi ng
g
Source
Jean Ro94 between Jean Way and Pilldngton
Sidewa one side$60,000
SDC, NLFS
P-2
Kerr Pk++y, between PCG'One Jefferson
Sidewalk, south side
4,000
SDC, C
Pkwy.
(Mut/ Clack),
1NIB'S
P-3
erttree 1514Femwood to Westview
Shoulder pathway
5,000
SDC, NLFS
P-4
E
10th Street, between
ay, Pa wone side
SDC NLFS
i P-
Wembley Park Road (98-99 Budget; Used
6 pathway
225,000
SDC, NLFS
i
Parks & Rcc Funds)
P-6
Carman, between Kruse and Fosberg
Sidewalk, east side
W-,-000
SDC, NLFS
i
Dame Way
Sidewalk (Imhxkd in Street Improvement
SDC, NLFS
Project T-55)
P-8
Lakeview between Twin Fir/lron Mtn
Pathway
166,000
SDC, NLFS
P 9
Country Club, Booms Fy.-Wemb y P.
Sidewalk south sideS75,000
SDC, NLFS
1 P-10
Melrose, between Peters and Fosberg
Sidewalk north side
1,000
SDC, NLFS
P-11
liwy. 43, between Public Storage and
Sikiewa1. east side trom tntxn Creek to
19,000
SDC, NLFS
Brianvood
Briamood
P-12
Lakeview Blvd bet+veen Bryant & 65th
Pathway, one side
$268,000
SDC, NLFS
I P-13
Upper Drive between Reese/Bryant
6' path+%ay
130,000
SDC, NLFS
P-14
Boones Ferry between 17755 and 17355
Sidewalk north side
$60,000
SDC, NLFS
-15
Kerr Pkwy, between One Jefferson Pkwy.
Sidewalk, north side
91000
—S7 -13c' —NLrS
and Touchstone
P-16
4th between Ave, Between 4th
iodewalk on west sale 4tK north side (,$6,000
DC, NLFS
ACC
P-17
Old River Rd
Pathway, orc site
00,0(10
SDC, NLF
P- !8 a)
TreetoprFcmwood, between
Sidewalk
56,000
'DC, NLFS
Creentree/Overlook
?• 18 b)
Csecruree Ave. between Cxeentrec Rd and
Pathway, one side000
SDC, NLFS
Femw000d Dr, and Fernwood Dr. between
CMapeleaf
and Girectace Avc.
P-14
Twin Fir
Pathway, are side$370,000
SDG NLFS
-20
ve Avenue
Path%vaN, one sik
$63,000
NLFS
P-21
P n. between Boars Ferry, and Willow
S&walk on one side
$66,000
N FS
Lane
tmrry Road- CwmmRmd to 13oores Ferry
Bike lanes, sidewalk on east side
S585,000
SDC, NLFS
Road
Kerr Road, rx) th skic, between Touchstone
Mukt-u:se path north side
..55,000
SDC:, NLFS
and McNary
Subtotil
$3,12 rMl
9 A
V ow i
12-26 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I I �')
Goa/ 92 Transportation
0 Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facl7ities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 1-10 Years
Map #
Location Description
Coutry CIub'A/4thB hemeen date and Iron Bike lanes
An.
Fstitnated Cost
(1997$)*
SI
Potential
Funcling
Source
SDCNLFS
OB -1
'B-2
McVey, between Oswego Creek and State
Street
Bike lanes
M
SDCNLFS
B-3
Ken- Parkway, between Steoxmon and
Boaxs Ferry
Bike lanes
_-- $600
SDCNL,FS
B4
Jean Rca&Jean Way, between Bowes Fenn
and Bryaru
Bilge Lanes (B. F. to Pilkington potion
corn!)leted)
$64,000
SDC, NLFS
13-5
Bowes Ferry, between Kruse Way and
Madrona
Bite Lanes (Cast utchded in Project T4)
SDC, NLFS
B-6
Stafford Road, Overlook to South Shoe
Bike lanes
$140,000
SDC, NLFS
'13-7
Mehnse, between Fosberg and Westlake
Bike lanes
M
SDC, NLFS
B-8
Quarry Rd
Bate lures (Cost inckx d in project P-23)
SDC,NLFS
B-9
Booms Ferry, between Coun>rry Ckib and Mtn
Paris Tcnvn Center
Bice lanes
$60,000
SDC, MYS
B 10
Pilldgtan between Boorcs Fy. and CltiJds Bike lanes
S280,000
SDC, NLFS
B-11
Fh%nod between Wakg Bocrtes Ferry Bike lures
$6-)000
SDC, NLFS
B-12 06aidgc Road between Quam- and Boones
Few
Bike lanes
S26,000
SDC, NLFS
B-13
South Shore, between Westview and
Lakeview
Shared Roadway
975,000
SDC, MTF
B-14
South Shore between Cieent ee and McVey
Shared Readway
0,000
SDC, M.FS
B-15
Willamette Shoe Bike Corridor Feasibility
Study
Study to detemwie cost/feasibility of using
Willamette Shoe right-of-way as a bicycle
corridor
$135.000
Metro
Portland
$7
SDC
Isubtotal—$1,484,700
'Incidental suTiN only
025
GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION 12-27
1 1 C+
Goal 92 Transportation
0 Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 1-10 Years
Map #0
Location
Estimated Cost
Description (1997$)*
Potential
Funding
Source
TR -1
Willamette Shores Trolley
Track/trestle Track/trestlerehabilitation S600,000
TR -2
041 Boones Ferry Route Barbur
Transit Center -Tualatin)
15 mat. service - days, 30 min. $1,250,000 (Capital)
service - eves 55,760,000 (Operating -
10 years)
F,S,S C,
NLFS Tri -Met
-
Subtotal
,
-_ —�-- ----- � -- -- --- -
F
11 -20 ear ota, All Projects S23,867,200
-
ear Total,r rojects S73,257,700
I _
Je_ fferson Rail Consortium
I
--
LIDLocal
t
Improvement District
ota , All—Project $97,124,
--- -_
�j—
(Lake Oswego Redevelopment
]mpro%cments pending Boones Ferry Planning and Design sign pro�eci
rote: rro)ects in u_rty ana trounry,lwismetion wut proceea wan tmanciai participation oy ooin parties
o - -
Roadway and transit fac tes cos s reflect constructwn, r fight of -way costs with constructwn costs at a d0 -5U /o confutgency
-
- --
un tng urces.
- - C ----
!Clackamas County
-i --------------- - - - --- -----
----- --- ------ - _ _ - -
--- CP
City of Portland ------
j --- ____
-_ —�-- ----- � -- -- --- -
F
Federal Funds - ISTEA
J
I _
Je_ fferson Rail Consortium
I
--
LIDLocal
t
Improvement District
-- — --
--- -_
�j—
(Lake Oswego Redevelopment
LORA
(Agency
iNew Local Funding Source
i(GO bonds, local gas tax,
i
NLFS
etc.)
S
State of Oregon
!(State Highway Fund,
Special Public works Fund,
State vehicle registration
fees, gas tax, revenue
sharing)
SDC
System Development Charge
TM
Tri -'stet
-
I
I
_ er, an --a h\ rens-
p\TI1s1-1Ii--------
I
12-28 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1�U
Goa/ 92 Transportation
❑ Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 11-20 Years
Map #
Location
Description
Estimated Cost
(1997$)*
Potential
Funding
Source
T-25
State Street/Cherry Lane
Left turn Lane, improve approach to$820,000
SDC, S
Hwy 43
7
T-26
Meadows Road-Bangy Road to
Widen to 4 lanes
$1,500,000
913C, C, S
Carman Drive
--71-7
"A" Avenue - State Street to 8th
Signal interconnect
V50,000
F,S,SD ,
Street
T-28
lean Read/Bryant Road
Left turn lanes, traffic signal
200,000
SDC
T-29
Childs Road/Bryant Road
Left turn lanes, traffic signal
$200,000
SDC
T-30
Kruse Way/Kruse Oaks Drive (98-99
NB approach lane on Kruse Oaks,
$150,000
SDC, C, S
Budget)
add bus pull-out
T-31
Bryant Road/Cardinal Avenue
Upgrade approach to Bryant
$60,000
SDC
T-32
Meadows Road/Bangy Road
Addition of a NB through lane on
$325,000
SDC,C, S
Bangy Road, SD left turn lane on
Bangy Road
T-33
State Street (Hwy 43)/Glenmorrie
Left turn larme
$100,000
SDC,C, S
Drive
T-34
Bangy Road - Kruse Way to Bonita
Widen to 4 lanes, pavement overlay,
$1,000400
SDC
Road
bike lanes
T-35
Kruse Way/Westlake Drive/Kruse
Right tum lane on westbound Kruse
$140,000
SDC, C
Woods
Way
T-36
Boones Ferry Road/ Country
Develop right turn lane on Kerr
$110,000
SDC
Club/Kerr Parkway
Pkwy approach
T-37
Carman Drive/Kruse Way
Add left turn lanes on Carman, right
$375,000
F,S,SDC
nun lanes on Kruse. Signal
modification
T-38
Kruse Way/Mercantile Drive/Daniel
WB and EB right turn lane
$116,000
SDC,C
Way
T-39
Country Club Road/ A Avenue/10th
Traffic signal
$200,000
SDC
Street
T-40
State Street (Hwy 43)%"B" Avenue
SB right tum lane
$350,000
SDC,S
T-41
Carman Drive/Lake Forest Blvd.
WB left turn lane
$150,000
SDC, C
T-42
Boones Ferry Road - 65th to Bryant
Signal interconnect
S210,000
SDC
Road
T-43
Carman Drive/Parkview
Traffic signal, channelization
$250,000
SOC
Drive/Fosberg
T-44
Knauss Road/Boones Ferry Road
Left turn lanes, channelize
$275.000
SDC
T-45
Bangy Road/Bonita Road
Traffic sigrwalsigmal interconnect,
$325,000
SDC,C
second SB ieft tum lane on Bangy
027
GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION 12-29
Goa/ 12 Transportation
ZI Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 11-20 Years
Estimated Cost
Potential
Map#
Location
Description
(1997$)
Funding Source
�DrivelMeadows-46
a
Traffic signal additional left turn Line,
$1,065,000
SDC, C
Road(Quarry Road
NB, SB and WB; additional through
right tum lane
T-47
Kerr Parkway/ McNary Parkway
Left turn lanes, traffic signal
$364,000
SIX:
(lower intersection)
F T -4F
South Shore Blvd(Westview Drive
Left turn lane, retaining wall
$100,000
SDC
T-49
Sta for Road/Golf Course Road
NB left tum lane on Stafford
$100,000
SDC
T-30
Stafford Road/Sunnyhill Drive
NB left tum lane on Stafford
100,0(10
SDC
T-51
Meadows Road/Kruse Oaks Drive
Traffic signal, additional SII right turn
320,000
SDC,C
1
lane, WB right tum lane on Meadows
Road
1-52
Stafford Road/Bergis Road
Left turn lane on SB Stafford Road
$200,000
SDC
T-53
South Shore Blvd./Femwood Street
Left tum lane
$50,000
SDC
T-54
Meadows Road(Kruse Woods Drive
Traf tc signal, SB left turn lane on
$260,000
SDC,C
Kruse Woods Drive
T-55
Carman Drh�e(Buuma Road
Realign Burma Road approach, add
$200,000
SDC
left tum lanes
T-56
Parker Cannan
Add tum lanes
$150,000
SDC, C
i T-57
Carman Drive/Bonita Road
Left turn lanes, traffic signal
$400,000
SDC, C
T-58
Childs Road/Pilkington Road
Left turn lanes
200,000
SDC, C
T-59
Knaus Road/Goodall Road
Channelization improvement
S60.000
SDC, C
! T-60
Laurel Street, Dyer Street to Hallinan
Construct embankment, widen
$600,000
SDC:
Street
roadway to City Standards
T-61
Traffic Calming - Daniel Way
Widen roadway north of Safeco
$300,000
NLl'S
Insurance to City Standards
Subtotal
,
762
Traffic Caimmg - Locations to be
Speed bumps, curb extensions, traffic
$200,000
S,SDC,NLFS
determined
circles, etc. (not mapped)
Subtotal
-,
028
12-30 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 ;M ;
Goal 12 Transportation
❑ Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
r UU M r actutws Flan: 1 ransportation improvement Program 1 1-lU Years
Estimated Cost
Potential
Map#
Location
Description
Funding
(1997$)*
Source
7P-724Washington
Court -Lake Forest to Boones
Add sidewalk on one side between La
14,
DC, FS
Road
Forest and Boones Ferry Road
P-25
Firwood between Waluga/Boones Ferry
Sidewalk one side
531,000
SDC, NZFS
P-26
Carman Drive - Waluga Drive to Qtany
Pathway one side
$140,00()
F,S,SDC,
Road
NLFS
P-27
CarTnan Drive, between Waluga and 1-5
Sidewalks and bice lanes on both sides
$290,000
SDC, NLFS, C
P-28
Lanewood/Douglas Circle, Twin Fir to
Pathway, one side
$200,000
SDC, NLFS
Boones Ferry
P-29
Monroe Parkway
Sidewalk north side
V6,000
SDC, NLFS
P-30
Bryant Road, between Lakeview Blvd. and
Pathway, cast s
120,000
SDC, NLFS
Jean Road
P-31
Knaus Road
Pathway, one side
5480,000
SDC, NLFS
11-32
Fake Forest Blvd., Washington Court to
Sidewalk, one side
$33,000
SDC. NLFS
Carman
P-33
McNary Parkway between JelTerson
Sidewalk, south side
$38,000
SDC. NLFS
Parkway and Churchill Downs
P-34
Meadows Road
Sidewalk on south side
$89,000
SDC, NLFS
P-35
Laurel Street, IlaUman to ComeU
Sidewalk on one side
$45,000
SDC, NLFS
P-36
Bonita, tvtween Carman and existing
Sidewalks
$32,000
SDC, NLFS
sidewalk
11-37
Boca Ratan
Sidewalk on one side
$40,000
SDC, NLFS
P-38
Cornell, Laurel to Bergis
Sidewalk, one side
$200,000
SDC, NLFS
P-39
Childs Rd, between Indian Springs and
Pathway on north side
$200,000
NLFS
Bryant
P-40
Brant between Lakeview/Boones Ferry
Sidewalk on west side
$85,000
SDC, NLFS
- P-41 IFosberg
Ra bet,.veen Carman and Melrose
Sidewa on west s
5,000
DC, LFS
P-42 ICherry
Lane
Sidewalk on one side, between State an
$55300
SDC, NLFS
IlaUhain
P-43
Bryant, between Westridge and Childs
Pathway, east side
$72000
SDC, NLFS
P-44
Redleat, Tualata, Centerwood (connects
Sidewalk, one side
$40,000
SDC, NLFS
Centerwood sidewalk to Pilkington/
Rivergrove school)
P-45
Botticclli
Sidewalk on north side
$95,
SDC, NLFS
P-46
Westlake Drive
Pathway on west side
$125,000
SDC, NLFS
P-47
T"tin r e
Pathway, one side
$130,000
SDC, NI.FS
P-48
Fir Ridge Road (bet -ween Wembly and
Sidewalk one side
$8,800
SDC, NLFS
Twin Fir)
P-49
Willamette River Greemvay George Rogers
Muki-use pathway
$I 10,060
SDC, -N1, Ft
Park to Oswego Pointe
029
GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION 12-311 ",.,3
Goa/ 92 Transportation
Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 11-20 Years
030
12-32 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12 4
Estimated Cost
Potential
MBP #
Location
Description
Funding
1997$)*
Source
P- 0
Willamette River Greenway, between
Multi -use pathway
3 ,000DC,
NL
Rocher Park and Tryon Creek,
connecting to Terwilliger multi -ase
path
P-51
Bryant Rd, between Cardinal/Sara Hitt
Sidewalk/pathway
0,500
--S—D-C, NLFS
Rd.
P-52
Goodall Road, between Knaus and
Pathway, one side
$246,000
SDC, NL S
Country Club
P-53
South Shore Blvd. (except Westview
Pathway on south side
$600000
SDC, NLFS
to Blue Heron)
P-54
South Shore Blvd., Westview to Blue
Pathway on south side
$50,000
SDC, NLFS
Heron
P-55
Hallinan Street
Pathway, one side
$69,000
SDC, NLFS
P-56
Kerr Parkway, Boones Ferry to
Pathway, east side
$60,000
SDC, NLFS
McNary
P-57
Kelok, Cardinal to South Shore
Pathway, one side
$50000
SDC, NLFS
P-58
Pilkington, between Jean Rd, and
Sidewalk, one side
$300,000
SDC, NLFS C
Childs
P-59
McEwan Between 65th and P&jngton
Sidewalk, one side
$52,500
SDC, NLFS
P-60
Glenmorrie Dr.
Pathway, one side
SI(K), 0
SDC, NLFS
P-61
Jefferson Parkway between Kingsgate
Sidewalk, one side
$105,000
SDC, NLFS
and Kerr
P-62
Jean Rd. between Mington and
Sidewalk, one side
$70,000.
SDC, NLFS
Bryant
P-63
Waluga Dr, between Parkhill and
Pathway, cast side
$40,000
SDC, NLFS
Carman
P -tri
Wahtga Dr. between Oakridge and
Pathway, both sides
$80,000
SDC, NUS
Firwood
P-65
Fosberg Rd. between Southwood Park
Sidewalk west side
$15,000
SDC, NLFS
and Melrose
Subtotal
,
030
12-32 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12 4
Goa/ 12 Transportation
❑ Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 11-20 Years
Potential
Estimated Cost
Map #
Location
Description Funding
(1997$)*
Source
RM-16Bryvant
Road, between Childs and
Bike lanes
S232,000 SDCNLFS
Boons Ferry
•13-17
Botticelli
Bike lanes1,500
SDCNLFS
B-18
C ' Road between 65th and 35th
Bike lanes
$310,000
S C,NLFS
Place
B-19
osberg/Carman, between Kruse Way
Bike lanes
$107,000
SDC,NI,FS
and Melrose
B-20
Bonita, between Carman and Bangy
Bike lanes
1231,000
SDC, NLFS
B-21
Iron Mtn, between Fairway and
Bike lane, south side
$68,000
SDC, NLFS
Chandler, south side
B-22
South Shore Blvd, Between Westview
Bike lanes
$350,000
SDC,NLFS
and Grecntree
••
Fernwood Drive between South
Shared roadway, local
$ -
DC, NLFS
shore/Treetop
'•
Lake Grove Avenue
Shared roadway, local
$ -
SDC, NLFS
••
Westview between South Shore and
Shared roadway, local
$ -
SDC, NLFS
Royce
••
Knaus, between Timberline and
Shared roadway, local
$ -
SDC, NLf'S
Boons Ferry
••
Lake Forest Blvd./Washington Ct .
Shared roadway, local
$
SDC, NLFS
between Carman and Boones Ferry
Subtotal
,
•• Meets criteria for Local Shared Roadway - no unprovments needed
031
GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION 12-3
";r
Goa/ 12 Transportation
J Goal 12: Transportation
Figure 19
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 11-20 Years
032
2-34 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,. 6
Estimated Cost
o entta
.Map #
Location
Description
Funding
(1997$)*
Source
TR -3
Kruse Woods Transit Center
$3,000,000
F, S, SDC,
NLFS Tri -Met
IR -4
Downtown Lake Oswego - East of
Park and Ride/relocated transit center $3,000,000
F, S, SDC,
State Street
NLFS Tri -Met
Subtotal
ear ota,A If Projects $23,867,200
1-10 ear Total, All Projects
ota . All Project I
- --- -
ute: Projects in Cit� and Cowttti jurisdiction will proceed with financial participation by both parties
--.
_iadway and transit facilities costs reflect construction, right-of-way costs with construction costs at a 40-50% contingency
Funding Sources:
C
Clackamas County
— -- --
— — —
CP
City of Portland
F
Federal Funds - ISTEA
—
---`-----
--- -----
J
'Jefferson Rail Consortium
LID
local Improvement District
LORA
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
":LFS
'New Local Funding Source �(Ci0 bonds,
S - _$tate
of Oregon g (State 1lighway Fund, Special Public
works Fund, State vehicle registration
`fees, gas tax, revenue sharing)
SDC
System Development Charge
-
032
2-34 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,. 6
DKS Associates
4: Long -Term Alternative Analysis
This chapter includes the establishment of a preferred corridor plan for Bryant Road between
Boones Ferry Road and Lakeview Boulevard which meets 2020 projected traffic, pedestrian,
and bicycle needs. Five long-term alternatives were developed and analyzed using a set of
design criteria described in this chapter.
Long -Term Alternatives
The following five alternatives were explored in this study:
■ No Build- maintain the existing corridor with 3 lanes at the Boones Ferry Road
intersection and 2 lanes the remainder of the corridor;
■ Alternative 1- 3 lanes throughout the corridor;
■ Alternative 2- 3 lanes from Boones Ferry Road to Sunset Drive, 2 lanes from Sunset
Drive to Lower Drive, and 3 lanes from Lower Drive to Lakeview Boulevard;
• Alternative 2A- Same as Alternative 2, but with the roadway near Upper Driveshifted to
the west; and
■ Alternative 3- 3 lanes at the Boones Ferry Road intersection and 2 lanes the remainder of
the corridor.
In addition to the various travel lane configurations, the no build alternative would maintain
the existing pathway on the east side of Bryant Road, while the other four alternatives would
provide continuous bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Also, the four
build alternatives are based on the installation of traffic signals at Bryant Road/Upper Drive
and Bryant Road/Lakeview Boulevard to replace the existing four-way stop controls.
Conceptual alignments for Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, and 3 can be found in the appendix.
Proposed curb lines, striping, sidewalks, and other key elements are superimposed on an
aerial base map of the corridor that was provided by the City of Lake Oswego. Approximate
tree locations are also shown on these plans and a list of the tree types and sizes can be found
in the appendix. The aerial base map is several years old and several changes to the corridor
have occurred since it was first taken.
Figure 8 illustrates the typical cross-6ections for both the 3 -lane and 2 -lane sections utilized
in the long-term alternatives. The 3 -lane section requires 56 feet of right-of-way to provide a
12 -foot center turn lane, 11 -foot travel lanes, 5 -foot bicycle lanes, and 6 -foot sidewalks. The
2 -lane section requires 46 feet of right-of-way to provide 12 -foot travel lanes, 5 -foot bicycle
lanes, and 6 -foot sidewalks.
EXHIBIT F-3
033 (LU 01-0029)
Lake Oswego Bryant Road Corridor Study Final Report
X.•IPmjectsl20011P010071WordlFinal Report.doc
Page 20
April 200 t
N
44'
3 LANE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
34'
12' 12 5 g
-- _ _ _- =
S/w
-------------
2 LANE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 8. Typical Cross -Sections
Future Bryant Road Travel Times
Based on the data collected from the existing travel time survey, corridor travel times were
estimated for each long-term alternative with existing traffic volumes. These travel times are
based on the proposed installation of traffic signals at Bryant Road/Upper Drive and Bryant
Road/Lakeview Boulevard. The approach delay from the intersection performance
calculations was applied to the corridor travel times as applicable for the Bryant Road lane
configurations at Upper Drive and Lakeview Boulevard. Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A
significantly reduce the corridor travel times compared to the average travel time for the
existing conditions, especially for the southbound direction in the PM peak. Table 6 lists the
results of the estimated travel times, while detailed calculations can be found in the appendix.
034
Lake Oswego Bryant Road Corridor Study Final Report
X. Projects 12001IP010071WorolFinal Report.doc
Page 21
Aprll 2001
Table 6: Bryant Road Travel Times- Existing with Alternatives
Free Flow Existing Alternative I Alternative 2I2A Alternative 3
Direction & Time Period Travel Average Travel Time Travel Time Travel Time
Travel Time
Time (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
AM Peak 48 83 66 67 74
Northbound
PM Peak 48 70 77 78 105
AM Peak 48 63 60 60 85
Southbound
PM Peak 48 165 66 67 74
Northbound travel times from West Bay Road (approximately 600 R south of Lakeview Boulevard) to Sunset Drive.
Southbound travel times from Boones Ferry Road to Lakeview Boulevard.
Free flow conditions assume vehicle traveling at speed limit with no stops along the corridor.
Data collected on 2/15/01 for free flow conditions and existing average travel time.
Design Criteria
A set of design criteria was utilized to compare the long-term alternatives based on the
relative advantages and disadvantages, how well the transportation needs of the corridor are
met, and the possible impacts. Subcategories of the basic criteria were used to evaluate all of
the alternatives both quantitatively and qualitatively. Table 7 describes all criteria in detail
and how each alternative measures up to the criteria. The design criteria evaluation matrix
was developed with the help of a steering committee as well as input from the public, which
will be discussed in a later chapter. The appendix contains a detailed breakdown of the costs
shown in Table 7.
Preferred Corridor Plan
Based on the design criteria evaluation matrix shown in Table 7, Alternative 2A has been
identified as the preferred plan for the Bryant Road corridor. Although the No Build
alternative has no fiscal cost associated with it and would not impact any property or trees,
this alternative does not adequately meet the corridor's existing or future transportation needs
and does not provide improvements for roadway capacity, safety, bicycles, or pedestrians. Of
the remaining long-term alternatives, Alternative 2A provides for the best roadway
capacity/safety improvements and bicycle/pedestrian facilities, while only impacting
properties and trees at a degree needed to make these improvements. Therefore, Alternative
2A is the preferred plan for the Bryant Road corridor from Boones Ferry Road to Lakeview
Boulevard.
035
Lake Oswego Bryant Road Corridor Study Final Report i Page 22
X:IProVectsl200l1P010071WorcAFinaI Report.doc April 2001
I .,..r
The improvements associated with the proposed corridor plan include:
• A new traffic signal at Bryant Road/Upper Drive;
■ A new traffic signal at Bryant Road/Lakeview Boulevard with dedicated
northbound/southbound left turn lanes;
■ Reconstruction of the at -grade railroad crossing on Bryant Road north of Lower Drive;
■ Modification of existing on -street head -in parking stalls at the West Bay Center to
provide two parallel parking stalls on the east side of Bryant Road south of Lower Drive;
• Continuous sidewalks on both sides of Bryant Road; and
• Continuous bicycle lanes along both sides of Bryant Road.
036
Lake Oswego Bryant Road Corridor Study Final Report
XlPrnjectsl2001LOO 10071WordlFinal Report. doc
Page 23
April 2001
'fable
7: Resign Criteria for Bryant Road i,ong-'rernt Alternatives
Criteria
Description
Alternative I -
Alternative 2 -
Alternative 2A -
Alternative 3 -
No Build
3 Lane Section
312 Lane Section
3/2 Lane Section West Shift
2 Lane S"llou
Roadway capacity and safety
Roadway capacity and safety
Roadway capacity and safety
Relative
Roadway capacity and safety
improvements. Provision of
improvements. Provision of
improvements (but additional
Advantacs
µ'hAi stands out as advantegcs7
improvements. Provision of
bicycle end pedestrian facilities
bicycle and pedestrian
improvements required to
No property impacts said
g
bicycle end pedestrian
on corridor. Less property and
facilities on corridor. Pewee
accommodate 2020 conditions).
no tree removal.
facilities on corridoc
tree impacts than Alternative 1.
larger trees requiring removal
Provision of bicycle and pedestrian
than Alternatives I or 2,
facilities on corridor.
impacts and tree removal,
No roadway capacity or
RelativeProperty
impacts end tree
Property impacts and tree
Property impacts and tree
although to a lesser degree than
safety improvements for
Disadvantages
Wlral tilAll h out A5 IlltiallYAn1A6CS'j
removal,
removal, although to a lesser
removal, although it, a lesser
Alternative I or Alternative 2.
motor vehicles. No
degree than Alternative I.
degree then Alternative 1.
Roadway capacity and safely needs
pedestrian or bicycle
not met for 2020 condition.
improvements.
TRANSPORTATION
NEEDS
Ike improvements meet design
Yes, len tum lanes prtwidat
Yes, lefl turn lanes provided
Yes, left tum lanes provided
Yes, but additional improvements
Safety
standards that would provide for a
throughout and railroad
throughout and railroad
throughout and railroad
required to accommodate 2020
No
safe transportation facility?
crossing upgraded.
crossingu graded.
crossing upgraded.
conditions at Bryan"keview.
Is 20 -year levelo sten a
mat? Is vehicular dela acceptable?
Yes/yes
yes/yes
Yes/Yes
No/No
Nettie
T raft Mobility
es Tor the --short but
Inadequate travel times
Arc corridor travel limes acceptable?
Yes for the 2020 condition.
Yes for the 2020 condition.
Yes for the 2020 condition.
additional improvements required
for both short term and
to provide adequate travel lime for
long term conditions.
2020 conditions.
Pedestrian
Ids
Aro Irian facilities consistent
Yes, sidewalks provided on
Yes, sidewalks provided on
Yes, sidewalks provided on
Yes, sidewalks provided on both
No, no sidewalks
but existing
Circulation
with City's Transportation Plan
both sides of the street
both sides of the street
both sides of the street
sides of the street throughout
provided,
limited pathway to
provided?
throughout corridor.
throughout corridor.
throughout corridor.
corridor.
remain on east side.
'W
Aro bicycle facilities consistent with
Yes, bicycle lanes provided
Yea, bicycle lanes provided on
Yea, bicycle lanes provided on
Yes, bicycle Innes providul on lath
o, nob cycle lanes
but existing
8
Bicycle Circulation
City's Transportation Plan provided?
on both sides of the street
both aides ofthe street
both sides of the street
sides of the street throe hoot
g
provided,
P
limited pathway to
throughout corridor.
throughout corridor.
throughout corridor.
corridor.
remain on east side.
IMPACTS
Pnq.esty Impacts
Number of its affected
I I
11
14
9
0
u&M nota e o u
_
13,650
IO,Sib
— _ --T-- -
--
Number of trees, 5-8 inches, -I
-E - 2
-. 195
-
-E - 19
5'-8 • 0
Tree Displacement
trachea and over 18 Inches in
9"-12" - 5
V-12" - 4
9"-12" - 7
9"• 12" - 3
911.12.. • 0
-__
diameter displaced_
over 12" - 17
over 12" - 5
over 12" - 2
over 12" - 5
over 12" - 0
Environmental
Environmental Impacts
0 aq Gmpact io` oni
630 sqmpaad'to Timonl
sq KTm*iioTmont
320 sq fl Impact to Lamont Springs
--
No change
Sp *
S n
S tin s
___
tM Strtel Parking
W" Ro -street Ing spices
hea3in stella at to y
g m stn s at best Bay
8 n stalls at est ay
-WTn slal�it Wes -t Bayy�entei
No change
int; ted
Center removed.
Center removed.
Center removed.
removed.
8
On Suet[ Partin 8
Numberfon-strett p mg spaces
para a stalls aald� -ii—
para a ata s a iTtd as est
para a to s a led el West -
n(e�Ts�iTi aided it est Bay
- --
No change
FEW
West Bay Center
Ba Center
Bay Center
Center
Driveways Affected
wn o rdrivawa—ya to
ebsed/number of driveways
ys
0 driveways closed
0 driveways closed
0 driveways closed
- -----
0 driveways closed
o driveways c med
0 driveways
-----
reconstructed
16 driveways reconstructed
16 driveways recvnstrwed
16 driveways reconstructed
15 driveways reconstructed
reconstructed
_ _
Capacity improvements
_
�--
Neighbxha"1
I low is traffic affected on local
should encourage traffic to
Capacity improvements should
Capacity improvements should
encourage traffic to use Bryant
Will increase as
Traffic Infiltrarlou
streets?
use Bryant instead of local
encourage traffic to use Bryant
encourage traffic to use Bryant
instead of local streets in the short
background trallic
streets
instead of local streets.
instead of local streets.
term until BryanUlekevicw
volumes increase
becontw over capsc irlr.,
Coq Estimate
° ng wngrrrct on cwt estimate (not including right-of-way)
I $1,333,000
SI,330,000
$1,333,000
--
SI,325,000
1 i
r
C.�
ORDINANCE 2312
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GOAL 12, TRANSPORTATION,
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN IN RESPONSE TO THE BRYANT ROAD CORRIDOR
PLAN (LU 01-0029)
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on October 16,
2001, to review the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
Goal 12, Transportation Public Facilities Plan;
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings, Conclusions and Order (LU 01-0027)
attached as Exhibit "A".
Section 2. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 12, Transportation Public Facilities
Plan is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeettt and adding the new text shown
in redone and underline.
Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Pro ram 1-10 Years
Map
Location
Description
Estimated
Potential
#
Cost
Funding
(1997$)_Source
T-21
Bryant
T,,,.,, lanes, upgrad Installation of a
$288;888
SDC
Road/Lakeview Br:
traffic signal, minor intersection
$325,000'
Boulevard
improvements and acquire necessary
Does not
rights-of-way
include
right-of-way
Cost
T-53
Bryant Rd, Lakeview
Widen te three lanes Add bike lanes
$1;188;888
SDC
Boulevard to Boones
and sidewalks on both sides
$1,326,0003
NLFS
Ferry Road
reconstruction of the at -grade railroad
Does not
crossing, addnorth/southbound left
include
.a.
turn lane at Lakeview, and acquire
right-of-way
necessary rights-of-way. (Reference
cost
projects P-40 and B-16
T-81
Bryant Road/Upper
Drive
Installation of a tTraffic sSignal,
minor intersection improvements and
$120,000
385 0003
SDC
acquire necessary rights-of-way
Does not
include
right-of-way
j
! _
cost
These proiects resulted from the Boones Ferty_Road Corridor Plan a refinement study completed in 2001
which identified a preferred 121an for the Boone Ferry Road corridor. ,3
' Estimated cost in 2001$, 0 3 9
V �7 EXHIBIT F-4
�- Public Facilities Plan: Transportation Improvement Program 11-20 Years
Map
Location
Description
Est. Cost
Potential
#
(1997$)
Funding
Source
P-4
Bryant Rd between
Sidewalks on both west sides
$85-iow
SDC,
LakeviewBoones
See -5
NLFS
Ferry Road
B-16
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
$233;99A
SDC,
Chi ids
See T-5
NLFS
Boulevard and
Boones Ferry Road
B-16
Bryant Road, between
Bike lanes on both sides
SDC
Lakeview and Childs
A'
NLFS
Road
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on the day of , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
P/case files/lu 00-0029/ordinance 2312
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
040
134
2
4
5
6
S
9
I tl
11
12
13
1-€
IS
16
1
18
19
20
21
24
26
�'7
2S
29
30
0
Revised
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PUBLIC )
FACILITY PLAN, TRANSPORTATION )
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1-10 YEARS, )
BRYANT ROAD FROM LAKEVIEW BLVD. )
TO BOONES FERRY )
NATURE OF APPLICATION
/a -&-o 1 -7-/
LU 01-0029 - 1436
(CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
A request by the City of Lake Oswego to amend the Public Facility Plan, Transportation
Improvement Program 1-10 years, which indicates widening of Bryant Road from Lakeview Blvd. to
Boones Ferry to 3 lanes. The Bryant Road Corridor Transportation Study, which has been accepted
by City Council, recommends intersection and signalization improvements rather than widening of
the Corridor to 3 lanes. This amendment will reflect the preferred alternative for this Corridor.
Projects amended include T-2, T-5, T-8, P-40, B-16 and the addition of a new project B -16A.
HEARINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
September 10, 2001.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A.
31
3'
33 B.
34
35
36 C.
377
38
39
40
41
Page 1
City of Lake Oswego Development Code
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 12: Transportation
Applicable Administrative Rules adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197 or Regional
Planning Regional Planning Requirements
OAR 660-12
OAR 660-11
LU 01-0029 — 1436
D. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies
2 Goal 12: Transportation, Subgoal 2, Intergovernmental Coordination, Policies 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission concludes that LU01-0029 is in compliance with ,ill appllc• ihlc
criteria.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated August 28, 2001, on LU 01-0029
(with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision.
IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 01-0029 be approved by the City
Council.
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
DATED this 24th day of September 2001.
Daniel Vizzini, Chair
Planning Commission
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
Page 2
LU 01-0029 — 1436
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ATTEST:
PRELIMINARY DECISION - September 10, 2001
AYES:
Edwards, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Groznik
RECUSE:
None
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - September 24, 2001
AYES:
Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Waring Webster
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Sandblast, Vizzini
RECUSE:
None
LU 01-0029 - 1436
7.2
10/16/01
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Council Adoption of Ordinance, 2305, Annexing One Parcel on
Knaus Road, Consisting of 0.5 Acres (File AN 01-0005)
(21 E0413B, Tax Lot 4800, 13020 Knaus Road).
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Ordinance 2305 and authorize the City Recorder to mail the ordinance to Metro
and all necessary parties.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
$525 in City Tax Revenue.
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Council Report dated
October 16, 2001, with
attachments
1. Ordinance 2305
and Map
2. Petition and
application
COM UNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT CITY
DIRECTOR MANAGER
Signoff/date Signoff/date
L Annexauons\2001 imexation Case I'iles\AN 0 1 -0005\cover nvnio.doc
001
PUBLISHED NOTICES
(Date): August 30, 2001 and
October 4 and 11, 200.1_
Ordinance no. 2305
Resolution no.:
Previous Council consideration:
CITY MANAGER
6 of
Signoff/date
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Council Adoption of Ordinance, 2305, Annexing One Parcel on Knaus
Road, Consisting of 0.5 Acres (File AN 01-0005) ( 21 E04BB, Tax Lot
4800, 13020 Knaus Road).
DATE: October 16, 2001
ACTION:
Adopt Ordinance 2305 (Exhibit 1), annexing one parcel located on the south side of Knaus Road
between Alto Park Road and Goodall Road, consisting of approximately 0.5 acres, representing
$226,631 in assessed value and containing 1 single-family dwelling. The location is shown on
the map attached to the Ordinance (Exhibit "A" of Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
AN 01-0005 is a request by the property owners. The petition was originated by the owners of
13020 Knaus Road and has been signed by all of the owners of the land in the territory proposed
for annexation. In addition, the property owners have signed a Measure 7 waiver.
The property requires hook-up to the City sanitary line due to a failing septic system. The site
slopes from a high point on the north property line to a low point on the south. It is bordered by
single family homes on the west, east and north. To the south is an undeveloped parcel. The
only abutting land within the City is Knaus Road to the north.
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
I ) Oregon Revised Statutes, Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations
ORS 222.111(2) Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and procedure for
annexation, generally.
Council Report, AN 01-0005
�.
Page 1 of 9
003 137
ORS 222.125 Annexation by consent of all owners of land and majority of electors
2) Metro Code 3.09.040(a)(1-7) Minimum Requirements for Petitions
3.09.050 Uniform Hearing Requirements for Final Decisions
3.09.050(b)(1-5), (d)(1-5)
FINDINGS:
1. ORS 222.111(2) and 222.125
This clause indicates that a proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated
by the legislative body of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative
body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. The property
owners have signed petitions initiating this annexation (Exhibit 2). Their signatures
represent more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than
half of the land in the contiguous territory and of real property therein representing more
than half of the assessed value of all real property in the contiguous territory, and not less
than 50% of the electors residing within the territory.
2. Metro Code
3.09.040
Minimum Requirements for Petitions.
(a) A petition
for a boundary change shall be deemed complete if it includes the
following information:
1)
The jurisdiction of the approving entity to act on the petition;
2)
A narrative, legal and graphical description of the affected territory
in the form prescribed by the Metro Executive Officer;
3)
For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all
persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory
as shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk;
4)
A listing of the present providers of urban services to the affected
territory;
5)
A listing of the proposed providers of urban services to the affected
territory following the proposed boundary change;
6)
The current tax assessed value of the affected territory; and
7)
Any other information required by state or local law.
The above information was submitted as required by statute. All property owners and
over 50% electors have signed the petition. The providers of urban services include the
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Lake Grove Park District, Lake
Grove Fire District 457 and Tri -Met. The current tax assessed value is $226,631. The
Annexation petitions and application are found in Exhibit 2.
3.09.050 Uniform Hearing and Decision Requirements for Final Decisions Other
Than Expedited Decisions.
(b) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a boundary change decision,
the approving entity shall make available to the public a report that
Council Report, AN 01-0005
Page 2of9 004 138
addresses the criteria in subsection (d) and (g) below, and that includes at a
minimum the following:
(1) The extent to which urban services presently are available to serve the
affected territory including any extra -territorial extensions of service;
The Metro Code, 3.09.020 defines urban services as including sanitary sewers,
water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass
transit.
General: This annexation includes one parcel containing one single-family
dwelling. The owners have expressed to be annexed to the City in order to hook-
up to the City's sanitary line.
Water: This territory is served by an 8" City of Lake Oswego water line in Knaus
Road.
Fire: The parcel is currently served by the Lake Grove Fire District #57. Upon
annexation, the parcel will be withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District and
served by the City of Lake Oswego Fire and Rescue. Either the Main Fire Station
or the Westlake Fire Station will respond to emergencies in this area. The closest
fire hydrants are located approximately 500 feet to the west on the north side of
Knaus Road and 500 feet to the east at the southeast intersection of Knaus Road
and Goodall Road. There are adequate facilities and services to provide fire
protection to the subject property.
Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8" Lake Oswego sewer line in Knaus Road. The
sewer line was constructed by a private party who has established a zone of
benefit in the area. The subject property is located within the established zone of
benefit. When a permit is issued to connect to the sanitary line in Knaus Road,
the City will collect a "unit connection charge" in the amount of $6,356.68 and
reimburse that sum to the party who installed the sewer. This sewer line is
adequate to serve the subject property.
Surface Water Management: There are no established storm drains in this
vicinity. All surface water is managed on site. In addition, there are no known
storm water management problems in this area. Upon annexation, management
of surface runoff will be subject to City of Lake Oswego regulation. Specifically,
any additional future development on the property will be subject to providing
storm water facilities based on the impact of the development. The application of
City storm water regulations will be adequate to address any storm water
management issues.
Transportation: Streets and Mass Transit: Knaus Road is classified as a
neighborhood collector on the City's functional street plan. It is a two-lane,
county maintained facility with no curbs or sidewalks. The City's bicycle
Council Report, AN 01-0005
Page 3 of 9 005
.i ,1
facilities plan calls for "shared roadway" bike lanes on the east -west leg of Knaus
Road since vehicle speeds are volumes are low.
The entire length of Knaus Road is designated as a shoulder pathway route on the
pedestrian facilities plan. The projected time line for this improvement is 11-20
years. Improved channelization is planned for the Goodall/Knaus intersection in
the 11-20 year time frame.
The closest bus transportation is the Tri-Met's bus #38 that provides service on
Boones Ferry Road.
Knaus Road has the capacity to provide transportation services to the subject
property. This annexation does not propose the addition of any density resulting
which would result in additional trips. Therefore, Knaus Road will continue to
have the capacity to serve the subject property.
Police: This site is currently served by the Clackamas County Sheriff
Department. The City fields approximately 1.25 officers per thousand population.
The parcel will be withdrawn from the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's
Patrol District as a result of annexation and will be served by the Lake Oswego
Police Department. The addition of one single-family dwelling will not impact
this service ratio.
Parks: The closest parks/open space include Springbrook Park to the south on
Country Club Road and Woodmont Natural area to the east on Knaus Road.
There is adequate park and open space in this area and throughout the City to
provide services for one additional single-family dwelling (4 additional people).
In addition, the subject property is currently located and will remain within the
Lake Grove Park District.
(2) A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with
any urban service provider agreements adopted pursuant to ORS
195.065 between the affected entity and all necessary parties;
The City currently has no ORS 195.065 urban service provider agreements.
(3) A description of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with
the comprehensive land use plans, public facility plans, regional
framework and functional plans, regional urban growth goals and
objectives, urban planning agreements and similar agreements of the
affected entity and of all necessary parties.
Consistency of the proposed boundary change with comprehensive land use plan
policies is discussed in section (d)(3), below. Compliance with the City's Public
Facility Plans for water, sewer, storm and transportation are discussed in section
(d)(3), below. There are no regional framework, regional functional plans or
Council Report, AN 01-0005
Page 4 of 9 006
111(►
regional urban growth goals and objectives that are directly applicable to
annexation. Compliance with urban planning agreements and other agreements
with necessary parties is discussed in section (d)(2), below.
(4) Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal
of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary
party; and
The parcel proposed for annexation will be withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire
District and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District upon
annexation per ORS 222.520.
(5) The proposed effective date of the decision.
The proposed effective date of the decision is outlined on page 9 of this report.
(d) An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include
findings and conclusions addressing the following criteria:
(1) Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service
provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS
195.065;
The City currently has no urban service provider agreements adopted pursuant to
ORS 195.065.
(2) Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or
other agreements, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS
195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary party;
The Metro Code defines necessary party as "a county, city or district whose
jurisdictional boundary or adopted urban service area includes any part of the
affected territory, or who provides any urban service to any portion of the affected
territory." The list of necessary parties for this parcel proposed for annexation
includes:
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District
Lake Grove Fire District #57
Lake Grove Park District
Clackamas County
Tri -Metropolitan Transportation District
Council Report, AN 01-0005
Page 5 of 9 007 14 a
City of Lake Oswego/Clackamas County Urban Growth Management Agreement:
The City currently has an urban planning agreement with Clackamas County.
This agreement was entered into per ORS 190.003, and ensures coordinated and
consistent comprehensive plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services
and managing growth within the Dual Interest Area. The two following
subsections are applicable to annexations.
6. City and County Notice and Coordination:
The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity
to participate, review and comment, at least 35 days prior to the first
public hearing on all proposed public facilities plans, legislative
changes to the City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi-judicial land use
actions adjacent to or in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The
City shall provide notice to the County of private or City initiated
annexation requests within five days of the filing of an application
with the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission.
This policy specifies that the City notify the County of an annexation request
within five days of when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. The
Boundary Commission no longer makes boundary decisions within the Portland
metropolitan area. Staff relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code
3.09.030, which requires notice 45 days prior to the scheduled hearing for an
annexation for all necessary parties. The County is a necessary party under the
Metro Code definition and, therefore, has been notified.
7. City Annexations
A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided
for by law within the Dual Interest Area. The City annexation
proposals shall include adjacent road right-of-way to properties
proposed for annexation. The County shall not oppose such
annexations.
B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the
County roads and local access roads pursuant to a separate road
transfer agreement between the City and County.
The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the
applicable ORS and Metro Code for this territory which lie within the Dual
Interest Area. The separate road agreement referenced in 7(B) is now expired.
Transfer of roads from County to City is now done by mutual resolution on a case
by case basis.
Lake Grove Fire District/City of Lake Oswego Agreement The City and the
District entered into this agreement in 1997, providing fire and basic life support
emergency medical service to the Lake Grove Fire Protection District area.
C V
Council Report, AN 01-0005 n O
Page6of9 14,E
(3) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for
boundary changes contained in the comprehensive land use plans and
public facility plans;
a) Comprehensive Plan Map
The parcel is currently designated Low Density Residential on Clackamas
County's Comprehensive Plan Map, with a zone of R-20. The City's
Comprehensive Plan Map designates this parcel as R-7.5. Upon annexation, a
City zone of R-7.5 will be applied. The City and County have coordinated and
compatible Comprehensive Plans within the "Dual Interest Area" outlined in the
City/County Urban Growth Management Agreement (dated February 4, 1992 and
updated November 18, 1997), hence the City/County designations have been
determined to be compatible.
h) Comprehensive Plan Policies:
Goal 14, Urbanization
10. The Urban Services Boundary is Lake Oswego's ultimate growth area
within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range
of urban services.
The parcel proposed for annexation lies within the City's Urban Services
Boundary as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, annexation of this
parcel implements and is in compliance with this policy.
13. Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake
Oswego's Urban Service Boundary does not:
a) Detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing
City residents; and,
b) Result in property owners paying for urban services which do
not benefit their property.
The addition of one single-family dwelling will not detract from the City's ability
to provide services to existing City residents. Sewer and water costs are paid for
through water and sewer billing. In addition, this annexation will result in one
single-family dwelling consisting of four residents to be served by City police and
fire. This will not result in a lowering of the City's current ratio of 1.25 police
officers per 1,000 population.
The parcel is currently served by the Lake Grove Fire District #57. Upon
annexation, the parcel will be withdrawn from the Fire District and served by the
City of Lake Oswego Fire and Rescue. The addition of a single-family dwelling
to the City will not detract from the current levels of service enjoyed by existing
Council Report, AN 01-0005 009
Page 7 of 9
143
City residents because the subject property is already within the fire departments
response area.
This policy also addresses assurance that existing City property owners do not
subsidize newly annexed areas in the provision of urban services. The newly
annexed parcel will pay for police, fire, and administrative services through
property taxes. In 2000/2001 the assessed value of this parcel was $226,631. The
City's current tax rate of $4.7034/$1,000 less the amount that is currently paid to
Lake Grove Fire District ($2.3843/$1,000 in assessed value) results in additional
net rate of $2.3191 for total City taxes of approximately $525. Any future
development would increase assessed value and, therefore, tax revenue for
services. Therefore, existing City residents will not be paying for urban services
which do not benefit their properties, as the newly annexed parcel will pay for
needed services in a manner comparable to those paid by existing City residents
for their services.
14. Trio►• to the annexation of non -island properties, the City shall ensure
urban services are available and adequate to serve the subject
property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City ora
developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development.
Urban Services consist of water, sanitary sewer, surface water
management, police and fire protection, parks, and transportation
including; streets, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Pages 3-4 of this report discuss the availability of urban services. No additional
development is proposed at this time. Services are determined to be available and
adequate based on that analysis.
(4) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for
boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any
functional plan.
There are no Regional Framework Plan or functional plan criteria or standards
applicable to annexations at this time.
(5) Whether the proposed change will promote or not interfere with the
timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and
services.
This annexation should neither promote nor interfere with the timely, orderly and
economic provisions of public facilities and services.
Council Report, AN 01-0005 n O
Page 8 of 9 V 144
EFFECTIVE DATE:
a. Effective Date of Decision to Annex. Pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.0500), the
effective date of this annexation decision shall be immediately upon adoption, unless a
governmental entity that qualifies as a "necessary party" under Metro Code 3.09.0200) has
contested this annexation, in which event this annexation decision shall be effective on the 10tH
day following the mailing of this ordinance by the City Recorder to Metro and to all necessary
parties who appeared in this proceeding.
b. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter,
Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30'h day after its enactment.
C. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with
the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the
later of:
1. the 301h day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State;
provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as
established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after
the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district or
other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the
annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after the
election.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the proposed annexation of this parcel complies with all applicable Metro,
City Comprehensive Plan requirements as well as any requirements of the UGMA and other
applicable intergovernmental agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of AN 01-0005.
Fr11IBITS:
1. Ordinance 2305 and Map
2. Annexation petition and application
L:\Annexations\2001 Annexation Case Files\AN 01-0005\CouncilReponAN01-0005.doc
Council Report, AN 01-0005 O i 1
Page 9 of 9
11115
ORDINANCE NO. 2305
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING ONE PARCEL ON KNAUS ROAD, COMPRISING 0.5
ACRE IN THE AGGREGATE, TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO (13020 KNAUS
ROAD); DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING PURSUANT TO THE
LAKE OSWEGO CODE 49.62.1600; AND WITHDRAWING THE AREA FROM THE
LAKE GROVE FIRE DISTRICT #57 AND THE CLACKAMAS COUNTY ENHANCED
SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WHILE RETAINING THE PARCEL WITHIN THE
LAKE GROVE PARK DISTRICT. (21E041111 TAX LOT 04800) (AN 01-0005)
WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Lake Oswego of the territory shown in the map in Exhibit
"A" and described below, would constitute a contiguous boundary change under ORS 222.111,
initiated by a motion of the City as outlined in ORS 222.111(2); and
WHEREAS, the City has received consents to the proposed annexation from 100 percent of the
owners of land in the territory and greater than 50 percent of the electors residing within the
territory; and
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Lake Grove Fire District #57 would, by
operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from that district immediately upon approval of the
annexation; and
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's
Patrol District would, by operation of ORS 222.520, be automatically withdrawn from the
district upon approval of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Lake Grove Park District would remain
within the district upon approval of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego Development Code, LOC Chapter 49.62.1600(1),
specifies that where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific Zoning Map designation to
be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such a zoning designation shall automatically be
imposed on territory as of the effective date of the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report, which addresses applicable criteria, dated October 16, 2001, is
hereby incorporated; and
WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with Chapter 1.4, Urbanization of the City of Lake
Oswego's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Metro Code 3.09.050(b) and (d).
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The real property described as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake
Oswego:
Ordinance No. 2305
Annexation of a Parcel at 13020 Knaus Road, 21 E04BB, Tax 04800 EXHIBIT
Page i of 4 00
A tract of land situated in Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of Willamette
Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
A part of Lot 29, FOREST HILLS ACRES, in the County of Clackamas and State of
Oregon, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 29; thence North 891 31' West along the
north line of said Lot 29, a distance of 60 feet to the northeast corner of that tract
described in Deed to Gertrude Rebo, recorded February 3, 1960, in Book 566, page 772,
Deed Records; thence South along the east line of said Rebo tract, 100 feet to the
southeast corner thereof; thence North 890 31' West along the south line of said Rebo
tract 20 feet to the northeast corner of that tract described in Deed to Gertrude M. Rebo,
recorded December 21, 1962, in Book 615, page 394, Deed Records; thence South along
the east line of said last described Rebo tract and along the east line of that tract described
in Deed to Gertrude M. Rebo, recorded March 9, 1965, in Book 654, Page 82, Deed
Records, 191 feet to an angle corner in said last described Rebo tract; thence East along
the north line of said last described Rebo tract, 80 feet to the most easterly northeast
corner thereof, being a point on the east line of said Lot 29; thence north along said east
line, 291 feet to the point of beginning.
Section 2. The annexed area lies wholly within the following districts and will be retained
within these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Park District
Section 3. The annexed area lies within the following districts and will be withdrawn from
these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Fire District #57
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District
Section 4. Zoning Designation. In accordance with LOC 49.62.1600, the City zoning
designation of R-7.5 will be applied on the entire parcel upon the effective date of annexation.
Section 5. Neighborhood Association Designation. As provided in the Lake Oswego
Comprehensive Plan, Citizen Involvement Guidelines (August 1991), the City Council hereby
designates the subject property to be included within the boundaries of the Forest Highlands
Neighborhood Association, and said neighborhood association's boundaries are hereby amended
to include the subject property.
Section 6. Adoption of Findings and Conclusions. The City Council hereby adopts the
findings and conclusions set forth in the Staff Report referenced above in support of this
Annexation Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 2305
Annexation of a Parcel at 13020 Knaus Road, 21 E04BB, Tax Lot 04800
Page 2 of 4 014
148
Section 7. Effective Dates.
a. Effective Date of Decision to Annex. Pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.050(f), the
effective date of this annexation decision shall be immediately upon adoption, unless a
governmental entity that qualifies as a "necessary party" under Metro Code 3.09.0200) has
contested this annexation, in which event this annexation decision shall be effective on the I Wh
day following the mailing of this ordinance by the City Recorder to Metro and to all necessary
parties who appeared in this proceeding.
b. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter,
Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30`h day after its enactment.
C. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with
the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall occur upon the later of
either:
1. the 30`h day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State;
provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as
established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after
the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district or
other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the
annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after the
election.
Section 8. Mailing Copies of this Ordinance,• Metro Notice. Within 30 days following the date
of adoption,
(a) The City Recorder is hereby directed to mail a copy of this ordinance to all persons
and governmental entities that appeared at the public hearing and requested a copy
of the ordinance following adoption.
(b) The City Recorder shall mail a copy of this ordinance together with the applicable
mapping and notice fee charged by Metro pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.110, to
Metro Data Resource Center, 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland, OR 97232.
Ordinance No. 2305
Annexation of a Parcel at 13020 Knaus Road, 21E04BB, Tax Lot 04800
Page 3 of 4 1414
oi�
Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego held on day of , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
L:Wnnexations\2001 Annexation Case Files\AN 0 1 -0005\ORDINANCE NO2305.doc
Ordinance No. 2305
Annexation of a Parcel at 13020 Knaus Road, 21 E04BB, Tax Lot 04800
Page 4 of 4 016
150
Annexation to the City
of Lake
Oswego
AN 01-0005/Ordinance 2305
___.
T2 S R I E
-
-
SECTION 4
12831 <C
12840
n
1
12923
� /City
- -1---
c_ M_as_ col
Limit
f a
LAKE oswo�--
,
12850
WW W W
W 1
W
W
Q
~
v
SCALE:
�'
KNAUS -
�
ill - � 50'
ROAD
UCD
Flo
o
A
W
I
W W
�P
o co
Area'Annexed
LAKE 05 WEGO �..
SENIOR NfGH
SCHOa _
CD 1
� Q
I' a
LAKE OSWEGO D�
CLAjCKAMA
COUNTY
CD
� I
W ry I
no
GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
1 SYSTEM
11116101
13340
/13560'
13346
31348
13570
EXHIBIT A
017
(AN 01-0005/ORDINANCE 2305)
1 ) ,
FILE NAME:
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ' V E
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ii APPLICATION
PLANNING DIVISION ( QR
380 A Avenue
P.O. BOX 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ANNEXATION
PHONE: (503) 635-0290 Dept. of Planning h Development
FILE NUMBER(S): A0 r1 if, —
SUBMIT: — REVIEW:
RESUBMIT: --REVIEW.-
APPLICATION
EVIEW:APPLICATION MATERIAL RECEIVED: _
CITY FEE RECEIVED* �M `
- ETRO FEE: $ 1
HEAPING DATE ,✓ CHECK #'S: RECEIPT #:
E;KLIST: ��I`Le,_a[ Des�,ript,en dr -tole Repc.rt,✓J CC?MPLETENE,3S DA'' -E: _
MAssessor's Map S petition alKees (City and Metro)
PRINT OR TYPE ALL INFORMATION BELOW
APPLICANT ❑ USE MAILING ADDRESS FOR HEARING NOTIFICATION
L;R WiME
i
= '.ESS NAME
s
L -s
C (U n t- C7 C, 5- `-l? .�
k-
-y
CJ t
E—V.Aai DRES �n
&Gv T 'R (ORIGIN;TL RE(ZIRED)
ATTACH ANNEXATION PETITION
PROP
r�u
STATE
L, ( 6 l
DAT
ERT" OWNER ❑ (ADDITIONAL OWNER -SEE PAGE 2)
70-3c/
r.,.. +r
ACOFMSS SUITE
Cr*Y �STi TSF b ZIP
Sr-%%ATURE (ORIGINAL REQUIRED) DATE ----
4M `J 019
EXHIBIT
_7_
1.J,S
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE
ATTACHED MEASURE 7
WAIVER IS REQUIRED UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE
-!i#,IEXATION PETITION AND LEGAL r-SCRiPTION FROM DEED
--DMONAL PROPERTY OWNER ❑ ,MORE THAN ONE OWNER
=«=+,i : PHONE #
_ S .4=_ Z !TAME FAX #
i`;oZe
A�.RE= SS SUITE
cl
�� �,��.�►, � �' ,�J L� GG S7T, .� I ZIP
(ORIG AL REQUIRED) l DATE
_ _' PERTY/ZONING DATA
-.x^>Gss
Ze4cnption -_ -----
5 -If _CT (DO NOT USE SITE ZONING/PROPERTY INFORMATION
i.:re :Ar ire) LOT &BLOCK) ACRES EXISTING COUNTY CITY COMPREHENSM PLAN CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE TOTAL EXISTING
ZONINGDESICNATION DESIGNATION POPULATION
-AlR-zo V3
`F PARCEL AREAS ACRES SQ. FT.
_-
`."."TS -OF -WAY
"C E.E TNC'LUDED:
- _=.SON FOR
..%.EXATION: e -Lot e vilere C, V,
7oESSCRME NUMBER AND TYPES OF STRUCTURES ON THE PARCEL(S) (USE TAX LOTS AS REFERENCE):
ti' j ;P ��f1�1C�ILi 6i Q1i G
EX3ST114G USE
y_%OFAR5 fEIA TO B jE ASN /HEXED:
_ = ;POSE.D U OF AREA T BE TNNEXED
DESCRME SURROUNDINGyND USES (USE TAX LOTS AS REFERENCE)
NORTH � T" K
15
800
12840 �S� 500 n -
Q 12923-7m= 17 -a -
n +� s oc • /�• yy
i; r
N
4 'IN ` M
7p j et7 / 7a ',5' e:
700
0.40Ac.
a3 0.48Ac �+ 0.29Ac. PCL, 600 PCL.
O,� N 13017 PARCEL 2 0 602 PCL.
0 13011 PARCEL I 13045 h 0.28Ac• 3 0.30Ac• 4 N
;
J l n = ti 130.47 13049
Q P P P 8 1 9 9 8-I3I P P p�
1998-I0 1999
r � � � � \ � \ � � � � � �`_� � � . . x/4.7? -� 5' N67• fi
, ^ur ..• -... r. � •ee
2234 800 4900 .- .,400 /u'3, Corner
13020 . 30185002 e'yti 0,50gc. Pwa C. 43
13040 0.51 Ac. 5000
0.39Ac:
a 13044 . 13048 rn so
Sao•
a
7_21
c 4600
PARCEL I o c PARCEL PARCEL 2
P 3
o
(0-45 Ac.) g y° (0.46Ac.)Ipo
,~—
-� LOT 2 _ , � R P 997.. ,�
4700 '31 9� ,�.. s'• �
300
0 5500 �" x'2131 b 5 0070 JI 31 a 33
y z
131
Z
ea I Q \ p
0 Xz.o.s.zf.o I i
M 4,
fl31O. f:(� 1J -.SL 7�•W ` .e .37,1.0 j
J �.. -.
\ Ad ' 25 ♦ e 0 ;AI" �
oW •J'ti `
5600 �FkN*r'y.+oya� .���� /zc:,; r.
2164 0 ..v. _o 5900
".
ces 3C'f
5800 34
a
5700
tl 12 b�
'0 1 2132
'e °
29 30 r / l<
eo.
y !=e• o/
-?� 6000 2 2 •'
13351 35
a;' 4� h0 Q w
? _.�.
N (
e
0 N W k
I
to
to
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON
To the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego:
We, the undersigned owners and/or electors, petition and consent to be annexed to the City of Lake Oswego.
A map is attached, marked Exhibit A, showing the affected territory and its relationship to the present City boundaries.
PETITION
l Am A*
Signature Printed Name (check both if
applicable)
SIGNERS
Owner's /Elector's Mailing
Address
Property Description
Date**
•
PO
RV
Tax Map
Tax Lot
1�,
-Ta►� � M C.(�hc
✓
✓
I` 07 Ki,7��,t 7 -
�t� X5(3
Ll8 a4
— L C . tet_ 5 ia-< 7 'l o
�U
KQ��,� � � �. fwd►,y
�
✓
� �, l.v►�
PO Property Owner, RV = Registered Voter,
"Within 1 year from the date of filing petition with City
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation to Approve
Amendments to LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve LU 99-0020 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize ordinance 2302 for
adoption.
EST. FISCAL
ATTACHMENTS:
IMPACT:
Council Report dated
October 16, 2001
STAFF COST:
(B) Planning Commission
Findings & Conclusion,
BUDGETED:
June 11, 2001
Y N
(C) Planning Commission
Minutes, May 30, 2001
(D) Staff Report dated
FUNDING SOURCE:
May 11, 2001 (Exhibits
for this report are
available at the Planning
Dept.)
(E1) Special Street
Setback Map
(F1) Draft Ordinance 2302
(F2) Frequently Asked
Questions & Graphic
Examples of Special
Street Setbacks Applied
(F3) Before &. After Matrix
(including Deletion,
Modification, Addition
and No Change List)
COMMILINITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTO
el
Signoff/ ate
ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
Signoff/date
NOTICED DATE:
October 4, 2001
Ordinance no. 2302
Resolution no.: n/a
7.3
10/16/01
Previous Council consideration:
Work Session -July 24, 2001
CITY NAGER
Signoff/date
I. 'Case I•llcs\I999\LU 99 -0020 -special street setbacks\City CnI 1
ver memo I,U 99-0020.doc
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation to Approve Amendments to LOC
48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks
DATE: October 1, 2001
ACTION:
The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by the Planning
Commission at its May 30, 2001 meeting to approve LU 99-0020 and direct staff to prepare
findings and finalize Ordinance 2302 for adoption.
The City of Lake Oswego is requesting a Zoning Code text amendment to:
1. Update the roadways that are subject to the Special Street Setback Code Section. This
would result in removal of tine special street setback on those roadways where right-of-way
widths have been determined to be adequate, and an increase in the special street setback for
some roadways due to future planned improvements.
2. Clarify the Purpose and Method of Measurement for LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street
Setbacks, to ensure that it encompasses the need to anticipate all types of planned
transportation improvements and provide for a simplified method of measurement.
The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit F1.
BACKGROUND:
On May 30, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this application.
Measure 56 notices were sent to those properties fronting on roadways for which the special street
setback is proposed to be expanded.
Council Report LU 99-0020
003
Page I of 6
1.59
Staff received approximately 13 phone calls requesting a clarification of the proposed amendments
and how they would affect individual properties. Staff discussed the issues raised by the citizen
callers. No additional issues were raised. In addition, at the public hearing, two people requested
information on how these proposed amendments affected their property. These questions were
addressed at the hearing. There were no further issues and the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this application to the City Council.
The proposed amendments are intended to update a section of the code that has been relatively
untouched since 1961.
The purpose of the Special Street Setback list is to ensure:
I . That new structures on a property are placed in areas where they would not interfere with
possible expanded acquisition of right-of-way width; and
?. Any new structures or surface improvements are set back far enough from the future right-
of-way so they would remain in compliance with the zone's required front yard setbacks
after the additional right-of-way was obtained.
Please refer to Exhibit F2, which provides examples of the application of the setbacks. In the four
examples, R-7.5 zoning, with a front yard setback of 25 feet and road right-of-way width of 40 feet
20 feet from centerline on each side), is used for illustration purposes.
• Exhibit F2, Example 1 illustrates a typical street without the application of the special street
setback.
• Exhibit F2, Example 2 illustrates a roadway with the application of the special street
setback.
• Exhibit F2, Example 3 illustrates the placement of a newly constructed home on a roadway
that initially did not have the special setbacks, but now does.
• Exhibit F2, Example 4 illustrates the result from removal of the special street setback, which
functionally results in a reduction of the front yard setback.
hibit F2 also provides a summary of frequently asked questions regarding special street setbacks.
.Applying the special street setback does not constitute a "taking" of property because the property
vner is still allowed to develop the parcel for its intended use based on the zoning of the parcel
.d may use the area in the special street setback so long there are no structures placed in the
setback. The special street setback is similar to other required building setbacks (front, side and
rear yard setbacks) that are contained in the Zoning Code. Building setbacks are used to promote
adequate light, air, aesthetics and general public welfare. Similarly, special street setbacks promote
:he public interest by providing a setback along rights-of-way which may be expanded in the future,
so that if the right-of-way is expanded, an adequate front yard setback will be preserved.
.Another concern that the Council had was how additional right-of-way was acquired. As a point of
.larification, a distinction must be made between "rights-of-way" and "setbacks". A road right, iof
is distinguished from a setback area because the property owner does not have the control of
the area which is subject to the right-of-way easement/dedication, whereas, the property owner
cally has use of the setback area as long as it is kept free of structures. Right-of-way is obtained
-ough two methods: 1) Exactions, which mitigate negative impacts of development and are
Council Report LU 99-0020 004 Page 2 of 6
iGv
imposed through a land use decision in the form of a condition of approval, or 2) City acquisition.
These methods of obtaining rights-of-way are discussed below:
I ) Exactions: Right-of-way dedication is sometimes obtained by the City as a requirement of a
land use action, where a proposed development negatively impacts the surrounding street system.
.For example, if a property owner wanted to partition their parcel into two lots, as a condition of
approval, the City would require that the property owner dedicate a certain amount of land along the
total roadway frontage as a means of mitigating the additional burdens to the street system created
by the development. The amount of dedication is based on the existing right-of-way and the impact
on the street system resulting from the development. The burden of proof is on the City to
demonstrate the "rough proportionality" correlation between the City's requirement to dedicate
additional right-of-way and the development proposal's level of impact on the street system. It is
common practice now to examine these exactions with minor partitions, subdivisions, planned
developments, commercial or multifamily land use developments.
2) Cid Acquisition: On some occasions the City may have the opportunity to acquire additional
right-of-way from property owners, either in title or by easement/dedication. An example of this
occurring is when a roadway has been identified for numerous transportation improvements based
on increased traffic volumes caused by one or more developments. Most of the right-of-way may
already be dedicated through exactions, but the necessary expanded right-of-way width may not be
fully dedicated. The City may opt to acquire the necessary right-of-way by title or
dedication/easement to make the necessary improvements.
For those parcels where the special street setback is being removed or reduced, such removal or
reduction of the special street setback is not a "vacation of the right-of-way". Removal or reduction
of the special street setback is akin to reduction of a building setback, i.e., front, side, or rear year.
It does not "vacate" the easement /dedication for public use of the right-of-way. When the special
street setback is removed, the easement/dedication of the existing right-of-way width is not affected,
and the parcel's front yard setback is measured from the edge of the existing right-of-way.
DISCUSSION:
The current Special Street Setback Code Section identifies 74 roadways that require special
setbacks. All fitnctional classifications of streets are represented in this list. This section requires
updating because some streets on the list have been vacated, some have been fully improved, others
have undergone a change in functional classification and some of the written descriptions are tied to
obsolete City limit lines. Furthermore, the list is arranged in unrelated, generally alphabetical
blocks, which makes finding a particular street difficult.
The current Code language promotes flexible street standards, which emphasize neighborhood
livability. The policy language found under LOC 42.03.050, the General Standards for Local
Residential Streets lends itself to less stringent right-of-way requirements than past language, which
required 50 -foot of right-of-way for a local street.
Due to changes in policy, plans and practices, the proposed amendments are required in order to
maintain an applicable list of streets with additional right-of-way needs and Code language that is
applicable to today's needs.
Council Report LU 99-0020005
9-0020OOJ Page 3 of G
161
The Public Facilities Plan (PFP), Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and Transportation System Plan
(TSP) are all examples of plans that the Special Street Setbacks affect. Several of the streets
referred to in the 1961 version of the Special Street Setback Code Section are no longer .relevant, as
the City limit has changed. Many more streets are not included as a result of the continued growth
of the City. The above plans include additional streets, which need to be included in the Special
Street Setback Code Section in order to accommodate future growth and maintain transportation
services at acceptable levels.
.Amendments for Roadways Subject to Special Street Setbacks
.As noted previously, the first area suggested for amendment is to update the roadways that are
subject to the Special Street Setback Code Section. Four lists: Deletion, Modification, Addition and
No Change (Exhibit F3 and identified in Exhibit E1 Map), have been developed from the original
list of 74 roadways. The attached lists in Exhibit F3 have been formatted to provide a snapshot of
each street; what it needs (or doesn't), and the reason(s) why it is changing or is not changing. The
Engineering staff obtained each street's existing right-of-way width from tax maps, then evaluated
each street's ability to accommodate anticipated improvements, given its present functional
classification and construction projects identified in the 20 -year TSP. Extensive field work was
necessary to produce the recommendations in the lists. All of the proposed amendments are
consistent with the needs or proposals in either the PFP, CIP or TSP.
Summary of amendments:
• Deletion List consists of 44 roadways that are recommended for removal from the Special
Street Setback Code Section. They are primarily local streets with adequate rights-of-way.
• Modification List identifies 19 roadways whose descriptions should be re -worded or whose
special street setback should be modified. In most cases, the recommendation is for a
reduction in the special street setback.
• Addition List identifies 11 roadways including deficient rights-of-way the City has annexed,
or could annex because they are within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
• No Change List identifies 14 road-*,%•ays that are on the existing Special Street Setback List,
with no changes proposed to them.
The final number of roadways that would be subject to the Special Street Setback Code Section is
44.
Text Amendments for Purpose and Method of Measurement
The second area of amendment is text amendments to clarify: 1) The purpose of the special street
setback requirement and 2) The methodology used to ascertain the required right-of-way.
1) The current "purpose" statement, LOC 48.20.535(4), states, "Due to present or anticipated traffic
volumes, the following setbacks are established." This statement does not fully reflect the entire
uses of streets. Collector and arterial streets have traditionally served other functions: pedestrian
and bike facilities, desirable streetscape amenities, and alternative modes of travel. The special
street setback purpose statement should reflect the broader scope of these collector and arterial
streets. Staff would recommend that this "purpose statement" be broadened to include pedestrian
and bike facilities, as well as the need for streetscape amenities. The new proposed "purpose"
statement would read as follows:
Council Report LU 99-0020 Page 4 of 6
006 16
"Purpose. To preserve an obstruction -free area along public rights-of-way in anticipation of
future street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit
facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and street landscaping."
2) The current methodology used to ascertain the required special street setback is confusing and
does not reflect how it is actually determined in practice. The Code currently states that "Setbacks
are measured perpendicular from the centerline of the proposed total right of way which is the
common property line between abutting properties prior to any road dedication." Not in all cases is
the common property line between abutting properties the centerline of the dedicated right-of-way.
Requiring a search of the creation of the adjacent parcels to determine whether the dedication for
the right-of-way was equally given, or whether it was given all from one parcel, is unnecessary and
counterproductive to the purpose of the special street setback.
By taking the measurement from the established centerline of the right-of-way, the special street
setback width can be applied in an equal manner to the adjacent parcels abutting a right-of-way.
This change would conform to current practice: Whenever a property owner applies for some kind
of land use approval, the special street setback list is consulted for applicability. If the site's
frontage street is listed, the "special street setback" dimension is found. Typically, this dimension is
measured from the center of the right-of-way and a reference line is identified on the parcel. The
reference line is called the "special street setback line" and it represents the edge of the desired half
,,vidth of the right-of-way. The Zoning Code's front yard setback (or street side -yard setback in the
case of corner lots) is then measured from this reference line. This is illustrated in Exhibit F2,
Example 2.
Staff recommends that the methodology of establishing the line from which the special street
setback is measured -- centerline of the right-of-way v. common boundary line -- be changed, to
follow current practices. The proposed amendments are described in Exhibit F1.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 2302.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use]
B. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion, June 11, 2001
C. Planning Commission Minutes, May 30, 2001
D. LU 99-0020 Planning Department's Staff Report Dated May 11, 2001 (Exhibits for
this report are available at the Planning Department)
E. GRAPHICS
E1. Special Street Setback Map
Council Report LU 99-0020 007 Page 5 of 6
163
F. Written Mater}als
F1. Draft Ordinance 2302
F2. Frequently Asked Questions and Graphic Examples of Special Street
Setbacks Applied
F3. Before and After Matrix (including Deletion, Modification, Addition and No
Change list)
G. Letters - None
-'Case Files\1999\LU 99 -0020 -special street setbacks\City Council\Council Report LU 99-0020.doc
-ouncil Report LU 99-0020008
9-0020OO8 Page 6 of 6
164
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A REQUEST FOR A ZONING CODE TEXT)
AMENDMENT TO LOC 48.20.535(4), )
SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS )
LU 99-0020 - 1422
(CITY OF LAKE OSWEG0)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
NATURE OF APPLICATION
A Legislative Zoning Code Text Amendment to LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks. This
amendment will update the list of roadways in the City that would be subject to the special street
setbacks requirement.
HEARINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
May 30, 2001.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. Cite of Lake Osweeo Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies
5,10
009
1_U 99-0020 (1422)
EXHIBIT B
PAGE 1 1 6 J
Goal 2: Land Use
Section 1: Land Use Policy
4(d)
Section 2: Community Design & Aesthetics Polices
1(d), 4
Goal 12: Transportation
Subgoal 1: Major Street System, Policies
1(a), 7
Subgoal 2: Inter -Governmental Coordination, Policy
1(e)
=-:
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy
4
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy
1
- B.
Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan
a.
Title 6 — Regional Accessibility
C.
Statewide Plannine Goals
s
Goal I — Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 — Land Use Planning
?
Goal 12 — Transportation
009
1_U 99-0020 (1422)
EXHIBIT B
PAGE 1 1 6 J
D. Citv of Lake Oswego Develoament Standards:
LOC 49.16.010
Purpose
LOC 49.20.115
Major Development
LOC 49.22.200
Burden of Proof
LOC 49.36.000-.710
Application Procedures
LOC 49.44.900-.920
Review of Major Development Applications
and Appeals
LOC 49.46
Hearings before a Hearing Body
LOC 49.60.1500(2)
Legislative Decision Defined
LOC 49.60.15 10
Required Notice to DLCD
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission concludes that LU 99-0020 is in compliance with all applicable
criteria.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated May 11, 2001, on LU99-0020
(with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision. The Commission adopts by
reference its oral deliberations on this matter.
IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
I . The Planning Commission recommends that LU 99-0020 be approved by the City
Council.
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
DATED this 11th day of June 2001.
LU 99-0020 (1422)
Daniel Vizzini, Acting Chair
Planning Commission
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
PAGE 2 166
I
2
3
4
Z
s
9
10
11
12
4
15
17
1s
ATTEST:
PRELIMINARY DECISION - May 30.2001
AYES:
Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Vizzini, Waring
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Beebe, Sandblast
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - hme 11, 2001
AYES:
Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Vizzini
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Waring
RECUSED:
Sandblast, Webster
LU 99-0020 (1422)
Oil
11\(,i � j
OREGON
I. CALL TO ORDER
GIp���V6�
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 30, 2001
Acting Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, May
30, 2001 to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue,
Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Il. ROLL CALL
Members present were Acting Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Ray Edwards, Frank
Groznik, James Johnson and David Waring. Chair William Beebe and Commissioner
Kenneth Sandblast were excused.
Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Robert Galante,
Director, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Evan
Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary.
M. CITIZEN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda
None.
IA'. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of April 23, 2001.
Commissioner Waring seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners
Edwards and Waring voting yes. Acting Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Groznik and
Johnson recused themselves. There were no votes against.
GENERAL PLANNING — WORK SESSION
Update on Redevelopment Activity
Robert Galante, Redevelopment Agency Director, reported the progress of
redevelopment on Blocks 136 and 138 and .Millennium Park. He announced that an
undisclosed retail tenant had agreed to lease the ground floor of the retail/office building
facing A Avenue from Block 136 and that Windermere Realtors had leased the upper
floor. He noted that the remainder of the block would feature town homes. He advised
that a traffic diverter had been installed to discourage traffic from flowing into nearby
Cm of Lake Oswego Planning Commission - a 1 3Page 1 of 15 16 (�
Minutes of May 30, 2001 EXHIBIT C
residential areas at the request of the adjacent neighborhood association. He showed
illustrations and building elevations for Block 138. He pointed out two structures that
would face the park and he advised that it was possible that the high local demand for
restaurants might mean that both buildings would include a restaurant. He pointed out
the pattern of retail uses at ground level and one or two levels of office uses above the
retail. He advised that the four -level parking structure would be fairly hidden behind
other buildings. He also advised that Downtown Design Standards called for English
Tudor, American Rustic and Arts and Crafts design styles, but did not require exact
historic reproductions. He clarified that the purpose of redevelopment was to establish
vitality and a sense of place downtown and the design was to focus on the streetscape
and storefronts. He explained the garage would accommodate 336 parking spaces and
its floor levels and ceiling heights were planned to provide access for delivery vehicles
and pedestrian access to the adjacent retail and office uses. He noted that the below
grade level was for employee parking, the two middle levels would serve the general
public and retail customers and the upper level would serve the office use. He advised
that he was to meet with neighborhood residents to discuss the project and would then
participate in a preapplication conference with the staff. He anticipated the proposal
would be ready for Development Review Commission review in the fall of 2001.
Mr. Galante noted that although some residents had initially felt that there was an excess
of paving at Millennium Park, use of the Park showed that even more paved area would
have been useful there. He pointed out a parcel of land that the City did not yet own
where the original plan had shown a grand staircase down to the lake from First Street.
He explained that construction of the staircase would require the City to acquire a
second railroad crossing, but the railroad was not inclined to agree to a crossing because
they anticipated a future time when they would need to install two tracks to
accommodate passenger traffic. He said the City had hired an attorney to negotiate
crossing agreements. He clarified that the Union Pacific Railroad owned the tracks and
]eased them to the Northern and Western Railroad. He advised that the City had
previously purchased two segments of track and a pedestrian/park easement within the
corridor; however, part of the easement had been subsequently classified as a "wetland
edge" that could not be disturbed, which meant the walkway had to be located closer to
the railroad tracks. He related that the City owned a crossing at Third Street and had
also purchased a tract of developable land (for up to 24 lots) that extended into the water
at Third Street. He explained that the purchase had been intended to protect the public
view of Lakewood Bay and provide for access for emergency services. He anticipated
that an extension of the Park would be constructed in the area of some existing garages
serving an adjacent condominium project after an underground parking structure was
built that would also the condominiums. He also anticipated the Park's tree grove
would be expanded, basalt walls would be extended, and a handicapped ramp would
provide access to the lower plaza.
Mr. Galante anticipated that improvement of a segment of First Street between A and B
Avenues would begin in August 2001. He said the City intended to encourage ground
level retail along the street, which would feature brick buildings, sidewalks and streets
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 014 Page 2 of 15 170
Minutes of May 30, 2001
and a pedestrian orientation. He noted there was to be a mid -block pedestrian crossing.
He said the City was preparing to focus its redevelopment efforts on the blocks across A
Avenue from Blocks 136, 137 and 138 and the Foothills Road area. He clarified for the
Commissioners that a green park would be planted on top of the underground parking
structure at the park, and that the original plan for Lake Plaza had been changed after
public comments indicated citizens desire to maintain a walking path there. He also
clarified that the Redevelopment Agency's top priorities at Millennium Park were to
obtain a grade crossing, then to build the walkway and handicapped ramp in late 2001 or
early 2002.
Mr. Galante shared with the Commissioners that Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner,
was leaving his position after nearly 15 years of employment with the City. He
encouraged any Commission members who had the opportunity to work with Mr.
Wheeler to give him a call and thank him for his services.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 99-0020, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Zoning Code Text amendment
to LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks (SSS). This amendment will update the
list of roadways in the City that would be subject to the special street setbacks
requirement. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner.
Acting Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time
limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report exparte contacts, biases or
conflicts of interest related to the application. None were reported. No one challenged
any Commissioner's right to hear the application.
Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He said the City was
requesting the Zoning Code Text Amendment to the Special Street Setback section of
the code in order to update roadways where the Special Setback requirements were to
apply and to clarify the preamble of that section regarding the purpose and methodology
in which to ascertain the required right of way. He advised that few changes had been
made to the Special Street Setback section since 1961 and the proposed changes would
make it more consistent with the Transportation System Plan (TSP), City limit
boundaries, the Capital Improvement Plan and the Public Facilities Plan. He said the
Special Street Setback ensured that new structures were placed in areas that would not
interfere with future expanded us of the right of way and that any property
improvements would be set back far enough from the required right of way to ensure
they were in compliance with the zone's required front yard setback after additional
right of way was dedicated or acquired. He clarified that changes in streets and street
functional classification and references to obsolete City limits required the changes. If
additional right of way were shown, the City would either acquire it or obtain it as a
condition of approval for land partitions or development. He noted that the City
proposed to add 11 roadways to the SSS requirement to accommodate future
improvements - including bike and pedestrian lanes — and modify it along 18 roadways.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 015 Page 3 of 15
Minutes of May 30, 2001 171
He pointed out that most of the changes indicated right of way reductions that typically
were approximately five feet, He said 45 roadways would be deleted form the SSS
listing because they currently featured adequate right of way for planned future
improvements. He noted no change was proposed for 14 roadways on the list.
Mr. Sin said the text amendments proposed to broaden the purpose of the SSS
requirement to indicate that public rights of way were to preserve an obstruction -free
area so they could accommodate future street improvements. lie said the amendments
clarified that the reference line was to be established by measuring from the centerline
of the right of way. He noted the current methodology referenced a common property
line between abutting properties prior to any road dedication. He said that did not apply
to many circumstances the City encountered. He advised the application had met the
burden of proof and complied with all applicable criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
application.
Commissioner Groznik noted that portions of Carman Road would be treated differently
if the proposal were adopted. Mr. Sin explained that some sections of Carman Road
already included adequate right of way. He clarified that the width of the right of way
was tied to a street's functional classification. He noted that the centerline of most
streets was known, but in some areas, such as a section of Boones Ferry Road, the
centerline had been changed over time, so staff was recommending that it be 50 feet
from the centerline at this time until the Booties Ferry Road Corridor Study was
completed. The Boones Ferry Road Corridor Study would supersede the 50 foot SSS
required and it would also locate the centerline and determine what the appropriate
right-of-way should be.
Proponents
None.
Opponents
None.
Neither For Nor Against
John D. Klosterman, 5605 Washington Court, Lake Oswego, 97035, asked how the
proposal would impact his property value. He explained he owned a substandard sized
lot along Washington Court and he was not certain where the centerline of the roadway
was located. He wondered if the proposal would mean that his front yard would be
reduced.
Mr. Sin advised that Washington Court was identified as a part of the improvement
area, and the proposal would enlarge the existing 40 -foot wide right of way to 50 feet
there. He noted the additional 10 feet would come from the frontage of properties along
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 016 Page 4 of 15 1 r1
Minutes of May 30, 2001
Washington Court (generally, 5 feet from each side). He also advised that the City
proposed to improve streets to the City's minimum standard paved area of 20 feet wide.
He noted that since a large portion of Washington Court was still in the County, that
would not happen until the City annexed the area. Mr. Klosterman explained that his
property was within the City and he understood that the City planned to improve the
roadway this summer.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that if he planned to build a
structure on his lot he would need to measure 25 feet from the roadway centerline to
find his front boundary and then measure the zone's required front yard setback from
that point. Mr. Klosterman indicated he desired more specific information regarding
how the amendment would impact his lot.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that property owners could request a
variance from the front yard setback requirement in order to provide sufficient space for
a single family dwelling. Mr. Klosterman stressed that he did not want any reduction in
his front yard. He asked if the City could establish exactly where the centerline was
located in front of his property. Ms. Heisler confirmed that City staff would accomplish
that.
Marianna O'Brien, Barette Properties, PO Box 906, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated
that she owned that Lake Grove Shopping Center at Bryant and Boones Ferry Road.
She asked what the City planned for those roadways. The staff explained that the
Boones Ferry Road Corridor was currently being studied and the City's proposal for
changes in the SSS would not impact the roadway along her property per se, because no
changes to Bryant Road were being proposed. However, the Boones Ferry Road
Corridor Study would dictate what improvements are made on Boones Ferry Road.
Acting Chair Vizzini closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Commissioner Edwards moved to recommend that City Council approve LU 99-
0020. Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion and it passed with Acting Chair
Vizzini and Commissioners Edwards, Groznik, Johnson and Waring voting yes. There
were no votes against. Acting Chair Vizzini announced the final vote on LU 99-0020
would be held on June 11, 2001,
LU 01-0010, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for an amendment to the City's
Urban Service Boundary (USB) to bring the subject properties into the City's USB and
apply a Comprehensive Plan designation of General Commercial District (GC) to Tax
Map/Lot 21E18BC00100 and Industrial Park District (IP) to the railroad right-of-way,
Tax Map/Lot 21E18(Index)00300. The parcels are located along the north side of
Boones Ferry Road between Jean Way and 63rd Avenue. The railroad right-of-way
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission017 Page 5 of 15 173
Minutes of May 30, 2001
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANTS
City of Lake Oswego
PROPERTY OWNERS
N -A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Transportation Right -of -Way
LOCATION
City-wide
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION
N/A
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCI.ATION
All
FILE NO
LU 99-0020
STAFF
Sidaro Sin
DATE OF REPORT
May 11, 2001
DATE OF HEARING
May 30, 2001
ZONING DESIGNATION
N/A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The City of Lake Oswego is requesting a Zoning Code text amendment to:
1. Clarify the preamble for LOC 48.20.535(4) Special Street Setbacks
2. Update the Special Street Setback List
The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit F1.
II. RECOMMENDATION
This application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code text
amendment complies with all applicable criteria. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of LU 99-0020 to the City Council.
019
EXHIBIT D
LU 99-0020
Page Iof13 .175
III. 120 -DAY DECISION DATE N/A
IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. Citv of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies 5,10
Goal 2: Land Use
Section 1: Land Use Policy 4(d)
Section 2: Community Design & Aesthetics Polices 1(d), 4
Goal 12: Transportation
Subgoal 1: Major Street System, Policies 1(a), 7
Subgoal 2: Inter -Governmental Coordination, Policy 1(e)
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
B. Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan
Title 6 — Regional Accessibility
C. Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 1 -- Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 _. Land Use Planning
Goal 12 — Transportation
D. Citi• of Lake Oswego Development Standards:
LOC 49.16.010
Purpose
LOC 49.20.115
Major Development
LOC 49.22.200
Burden of Proof
LOC 49.36.000-.710
Application Procedures
LOC 49.44.900-.920
Review of Major Development
Applications and Appeals
LOC 49.46
Hearings before a Hearing Body
LOC 49.60.1500(2)
Legislative Decision Defined
LOC 49.60.1510
Required Notice to DLCD
LU 99-0020
0Ow Page2of 13 17
V. FINDINGS
A. Background:
The proposed amendments are intended to update a section of the code that
has been relatively untouched since 1961.
The purpose of the special street setback list has been to ensure:
1. That new structures on a property were placed in areas where they would
not interfere with the future expanded use of the right-of-way; and
2. Any new structures or surface improvements were set back far enough
from the future right-of-way so they would remain in compliance with the
zone's required front yard setbacks after the additional right-of-way was
dedicated.
The current Special Street Setback Section identifies 74 streets that require
special setbacks (Exhibit F2). All functional classifications of streets are
represented in this list. The list is arranged in unrelated, generally
alphabetical blocks, which makes finding a particular street difficult. This
section requires updating because some streets on the list have been vacated,
some have been fully improved, others have undergone a change in functional
classification and some of the written descriptions are tied to obsolete City
limit lines.
There are two areas of amendments proposed for the Special Street Setback
Section: 1) Street right-of-way requirements; and 2) Text amendments to
clarify the purpose of this section and the methodology used to ascertain the
required right-of-way. The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit Fl.
Discussion
Due to changes in policy, plans and practices these amendments are required
in order to maintain an applicable list of streets with additional right-of-way
needs and Code language that is applicable to today's needs.
The policy language found under LOC 42.03.050, the General Standards for
Local Residential Street (Exhibit F3), lends itself to less stringent right-of-way
requirements than past language, which required 50 -foot of right-of-way for a
local street. The current Code language promotes flexible street standards
which emphasizes neighborhood livability.
The Public Facilities Plan, Capital Improvements Plan and Transportation
System Plan (TSP) are all examples of plans that the Special Street Setbacks
affect. Several of the streets referred to in the 1961 version of the Special
street setback Section are no longer relevant, as the City limit has changed.
Many more streets are not included as a result of the continued growth of the
City. The above plans include additional streets, which need to be included in
021 LU 99-0020
Page 3 of 13 ' 7114
the Special Street Setback Section in order to accommodate future growth and
maintain transportation services at acceptable levels.
As noted previously, the first area suggested for amendment is street right-of-
way requirements. Four lists: Deletion, Modification, Addition and No
Change (Exhibit F4 and Exhibit E I Map), have been developed from the
original list of 74 streets. The attached list has been formatted to provide you
with a snapshot of each street, what it needs (or doesn't), and the reason(s)
why. The Engineering staff obtained each street's existing right-of-way width
from tax maps, then evaluated each street's ability to accommodate
anticipated improvements, given its present functional classification and
construction projects identified in the 20 -year TSP. Extensive field work was
necessary to produce the recommendations in the lists.
The deletion list is a compilation of streets recommended for removal from
the Special Street Setback Section. They are primarily local streets with
adequate rights-of-way. The modification list is a compilation of streets
whose descriptions should be re -worded, or whose special street setback
should be modified. In most cases, the recommendation is for a reduction in
the special street setback. The addition list includes deficient rights-of-way
the City has annexed, or could annex because they are within the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB). The Aro Change list identifies roadways that are on
the existing Special Street Setback List, with no changes proposed to them.
The second area of amendment is text amendments to clarify the purpose of
the special street setback requirement and the methodology used to ascertain
the required right-of-way.
LOC 48.20.535(4) states, "Due to present or anticipated traffic volumes, the
following setbacks are established." This statement no longer adequately
reflects the reason why there are special street setbacks. This statement
should reflect the broader scope of current policies which promote
neighborhood friendly streets and alternative modes of travel. Staff would
recommend that this "purpose statement" be broadened to include pedestrian
and bike facilities, as well as the room needed to install desirable streetscape
amenities.
In addition, the method to determine the required righi-of-way setback is no
longer applicable to all situations. Whenever a property owner applies for
some kind of land use approval, the list is consulted for applicability. If the
site's frontage street is listed, the "special street setback" dimension is found
at the end of its name. Typically, this dimension is measured from the center
of the right-of-way and a reference line is identified on the parcel. The
reference line is called the "special street setback line" and it represents the
edge of the desired half right-of-way. The Zoning Code's front yard setback
022 LU 99-0020
Page 4 of 13 178
(or street side -yard setback in the case of comer lots) is then measured from
this reference line.
Unfortunately, this method is unreliable in many ways. This method fails to
deliver a rational product under certain circumstances. For example, when a
right-of-way evolved by the platting of two "unequal halves" (Pilkington
Road, Exhibit F5), the problem is exacerbated. The Code directs you to take a
measurement from "the common property line between abutting properties
prior to any road dedication." This can mean a substantial exaction of right-
of-way from a lot abutting the "narrow half', but none from its counterpart on
the other side of the road. The Code is not sensitive to the fact that the
neighborhood's structures were placed equidistant from the edges of the right-
of-way. Strict adherence to the Code would upset the historic and
symmetrical development pattern by taking a disproportionate strip of right-
of-way from one side.
Another quandary with the current methodology is that it is not sensitive to
the fact that a legal centerline can shift over time, as in the case of Boones
Ferry Road ( Exhibit FO, and that adjacent development has occurred with
reliance on the new centerline. In addition, it does not recognize that
improvements can be significantly offset from a centerline, regardless of how
"centerline" is defined. This has a significant bearing on where strips of
additional right-of-way should be acquired.
Based on the above problems with the current methodology, staff has
recommended that a new method of measurement for the special street
setback requirement be followed.
13. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
As per LOC 49.22.200, the applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the
proposal complies with all applicable review criteria. Adequate evidence has
been provided to enable staff to perform a thorough evaluation to detennine
compliance with applicable criteria, listed on page 2 of this report.
A. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES
GOAL. 1: CITIZE1\ INVOLVEMENT
Policies 5 and 10
5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups
and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations.
023 LU 99-0020
Page 5 of 13
10. Provide opportunities for citizens to be involved in the planning
process, including data collection, plan preparation, adoption,
implementation, evaluation and revision.
Findings: This application addresses policies 5 and 10 -above.
Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the
proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all
Neighborhood Associations. In addition, notices pursuant to Measure 56
requirements have been provided to all property owners which may be
affected by this legislative action.
Citizens, interest groups, and neighborhood association will have an
opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed amendment during the
City's public hearing processes.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
Policies 5 and 10.
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
Section 1, Land Use, Policy 4(d)
Section 2, Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies 1(d) & 4
4. Require land use regulations to:
d. Provide for necessary public facilities and services.
Findings: The City's Special Street Setback section of the Zoning Code has
been relatively untouched since 1961. This section requires updating because
some streets on the list have been vacated, some have been fully improved,
others have undergone a change in functional classification and some of the
written descriptions are tied to obsolete City limit lines.
The purpose of the special street setback list is to ensure:
• That new structures on a property are placed in areas where they
would not interfere with the future expanded use of the right-of-way;
and
• Any new structures or surface improvements are set back far enough
from the future right-of-way so they will remain in compliance with
the zone's required front yard setbacks after the additional right-of-
way was dedicated.
By updating this section of the Zoning Code, the City is establishing and
preserving an obstruction free area along public rights-of-way in anticipation
of future street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and bicycle
024 LU 99-0020 t 1
Page 6 of 13
facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improverucrits, lighting and
street landscaping.
Those rights-of-way that have been added to the list of Special Street Setbacks
have been added because they have been identified for improvements in either
the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Transportation System Plan
(TSP), or have been identified as not meeting the City's minimum standards
for urban services such, as not have a minimum of 20 -feet of pavement for a
roadway. The funding source for many of these improvements have yet to be
identified.
The City would make findings and require dedication of these additional
rights-of-way when they are proportional to the land development. These
exactions would be required for minor partitions, subdivisions, planned
developments, commercial or multifamily land use decisions. On occasion,
these exactions could be required for lot line adjustments, if the adjustment
resulted in creating additional buildable lands.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section 1, Policy 4(d).
1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require:
d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian
environment.
Findings: The minimum right-of-way standards found in the City's Special
Street Setback regulation establishes an obstruction free area in which facility
improvements can occur. These improvements include transportation
facilities such as bike"pedestrian lanes, transit facilities, lighting and street
landscaping. All of these improvements enhance the security and aesthetic
quality of roadways.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section 2, Policy 1(d).
4. Ensure that both public and private development enhance the
aesthetic quality of the community.
Findings: The Special Street Setback Section establishes unobstructed rights-
of-way in which transportation improvements are anticipated.
As previously noted, the City would require developers to provide transit
improvements to City standards that are proportional to a development. These
transportation improvements could include street landscaping, bike lanes,
sidewalks and lighting, all of which serve to enhance the aesthetic quality of
the community.
025 LU 99-0020
Page 7 of 13
Public improvements are subject to the same design and improvements
standards as a private developer. In cases where additional right-of-way is
required and no private development has been proposed, the City may opt to
make public improvements and acquire the additional right-of-way, depending
on such factors as public need, timing and funding.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section, Policy 4.
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION
Subgoal l: Major Street System, Policies 1(a), 7
Subgoal 2: Inter -Governmental Coordination, Policy 1(e)
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
Subgoal 1: Major Street System
1. The arterial and major collector street network shall be designed
and maintained to service level "E" during peak hours. The
design of the roadway system shall also take into consideration:
a. Balancing roadN ay size and scale with the need to provide
efficient and safe transportation for all modes of travel,
including bike, pedestrian and transit.
Findings: In 1998, the City adopted its TSP. Within the TSP a system of
hierarchical street classifications was developed with local streets being the
smallest, least intensive roadways and major arterials being the widest and
most intensively used roadways. Within these classifications, street
improvements have been identified as appropriate in relation to the
classification of the roadway. These improvements are anticipated to be
implemented as the street system is developed over time. In addition to road
classification, another element of the TSP is the Streets Public Facilities Plan.
The state administrative rules for public facilities planning requires
communities to provide a list of short, mid and long range projects that it
foresees for all modes of transportation, estimated costs of these projects,
approximate locations and possible funding sources.
The Special Street Setback regulation takes into consideration specific
roadways that have been identified in the TSP for additional right-of-way
acquisition. These additional rights-of-way are directly related to and support
the Streets Public Facilities Pian of the TSP. The ultimate result of
implementing the Special Street Setback Section and Streets Public Facilities
Plan of the TSP is a logical, hierarchical comprehensive transportation system
that enhances the aesthetic and functional qualities of the City's roadways.
026 LU 99-0020 182
Page 8 of 13
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 1(a).
7. Streets designated as Regional Streets on the Regional
Transportation Plan, shall be designed with consideration of the
following when reconstruction or retrofitting occurs:
a. Promoting community livability by balancing all modes of
transportation;
b. Relating the street to the function and character of
surrounding land uses; and
c. Controlling access to improve safety, function and appearance
of streets and adjacent land uses.
Findings: On August 10, 2000, the Metro Council adopted the 2000 Regional
Transportation Plan (2000 RTP). The 2000 TRP has been submitted to the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission for
acknowledgement (a decision of compliance is expected by Summer of 2001).
The 2000 TRP Regional Street Design System Map identifies portions of
State Street (Highway 43), portions of Boones Ferry Road, Kruse Way and
Country Club Road as "Regional Streets. The objective of the Regional. Street
design is to support local implementation of regional street design concepts in
local transportation system plans.
The City's TSP takes the above considerations into account, as discussed in
Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 1(a).
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 7.
Subgoal 2: inter -Governmental Coordin:►tic�n, Policy 1(e)
1. Lake Oswego shall develop a Comprehensive Transportation
System (TSP) in conjunction with Clackamas County and
adjacent counties where appropriate, the State of Oregon, Tri -
Met, and Metro for the area within the City's Urban Services
Boundary. The Comprehensive Transportation System Plan
shall:
e. Describe public transportation services and identify service
inadequacies.
Findings: As previously discussed under Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 1(a), an
element of the -TSP is the Streets Public Facilities Plan, which specifically
addresses this criterion.
Conclusion: The application complies with the Goal 12, Subgoal 2, Policy
1(e).
LU 99-0020
027
Page 9of 13 ���
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
4. The City shall make the pedestrian environment safe, convenient,
attractive and accessible for all users through:
a. Planning and developing a network of continuous sidewalks,
pathways, and crossing improvements that are accessible per
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
b. Providing adequate and safe street crossing opportunities for
pedestrians, and
c. Improving street amenities (e.g., landscaping, pedestrian -scale
street lighting, benches and shelters) for pedestrian,
particularly near transit centers, town centers, main streets,
employment centers, and transit corridors serving the primary
transit network.
Findings: As previously discussed in this staff report, the Special Street
Setback Section provides the opportunity to develop safe, convenient and
aesthetically sensitive pedestrian facilities.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 6, Policy
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
1. Integrate bicycle access needs into planning, design, construction
and maintenance of all transportation projects.
Findings: As previously discussed in this staff report, the Special Street
Setback Section provides the opportunity to develop safe and convenient
bicycling facilities.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 7, Policy
1.
B. CONSISTENCY WITH METRO'S URBAN GROWTH
FUNCTIONAL PLAN
The Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan was approved November 21, 1996
by the Metro Council, and became effective February 19, 1997. The purpose
of the plan is to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
(RUGGO), including the 2040 Growth Concept. The Functional Plan must be
028 LU 99-0020 .184 84
Page 10 of 13
addressed when Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments are proposed through
the quasi-judicial or legislative processes.
The following identifies how the application complies with the relevant
portions of the Metro Functional Plan.
Title 6 — Regional Accessibility.
This title recognizes the link between mode split, levels of congestion, street
design and connectivity in creating a transportation system that works and
supports the desired land use concept. The title is intended to establish an
interconnected road system in undeveloped areas to reduce trips and
encourage alternative modes of travel. The inclusion of these special street
setbacks on these rights-of-way will provide for additional road improvements
and provide additional opportunities for transportation mode choices, thereby
supporting the intent of this Title.
C. CONSISTENCY WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Goal 1 -Citizen Involvement
Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the
proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all
Neighborhood Associations. In addition, notices pursuant to Measure 56
requirements have been provided to all property owners which may be
affected by this legislative action.
Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City
Council. Notice has been provided consistent with City requirements.
Adequate opportunities have been made available for citizen involvement
with regard to this application for amendment of the City of Lake Oswego's
Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
This application provides the required information and responses to the
applicable approval standards for a Zoning Code text amendment and
therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Furthermore, the
application has been coordinated with the applicable jurisdictions and
agencies as required by Goal 2.
Goal 12 - Transportation
This application provides the required information and positive responses to
the applicable acknowledged Plan policies relative to transportation facilities.
The application therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and
implementing administrative rules.
029 LU 99-0020
Page 11 of 13
18!3
VTT
D. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL.
REQUIREMENTS
LOC 49.16.010
LOC 49.20.115
LOC 49.22.200
LOC 49.36.000-.710
LOC 49.44.900-.920
LOC 49.46
LOC 49.60.1500 (2)
LOC 49.60.1510
Purpose
Major Development
Burden of Proof
Application Procedures
Review of Major Development
Applications and Appeals
Hearings before a Hearing Body
Legislative Decision Defined
Required Notice to DLCD
Findings: The application has been submitted, noticed and reviewed in
accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Development Code. The record
indicates that the application complies with all of the above applicable
procedural requirements.
Conclusion; The application process conforms to all applicable procedural
requirements, as stated above.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the materials and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that
this application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code Text
Amendment complies with all applicable criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 99-
0020 to the City Council.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use]
B. Findings and Conclusions [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
E. GRAPHICS
El. Amended Right -Of -Way Requirements for Special Street Setbacks
Map
03 0
LU 99-0020
Page 12 of 13 186
F. Written Materials
F1.
Draft of LOC 4$.20.535(4), Special Street Setback
F2.
Existing Special Street Setback Section
F3.
LOC 42.03.050, Local Residential Street -General Standards
F4.
Before and After Change Matrix with Description
F5.
Pilkington Road Right -Of -Way Example
F6.
Boones Ferry Road Right -Of -Way Example
G. Letters
None
Date of Application Submittal: February 1, 2001
Date Determined to be Complete: N/A
State Mandated 120 Day Rule: N/A
LACase Files\2001\LU 01-0003 Hill Top-ROAD-USBOanning Commission\LU01-0003 Staff Report 4-11-0l.doc
X831
LU 99-0020'
Page 13 of 13
DL
x" ` =e
\. J[= �� I �IIJ� n
C�
E j�-
C
T A
F FF -
L
77'
1A
LATIN/'
x.�" C .......
S,
01.08 ROAD
ITY OF
'RJVLRGR0V
..............
CITY OF
PORTLAND
r4 K G ILV II
[L
AJLjj -.i
W LIN N
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS
I U 99.0020
Inside City Limits: Outside City Limits:
Delete Setbaci r. r. Delete Setback
Modify Setbac., Modify Setback
Add Setback Add Setback
No Change r No Change
............. Urban Growth
Bounder,,
03
I I I
EXHIBIT E-1
LI
CITY OF a
PORTLAND / `�I �' Ib >E
- JL ° � '
Qq
��`� ti S— 7 �; Y "' '�}®• �� I Y CITY
MIL
Jr
LLJ
IjLj
I
r._ -��
TA K GI ���
I t:
6�; %Ir'`�j1 �l 11'11 If t lVV
Vic
l "CI
f I.
r. �> _ CRU 1F oSVVVW
BPECIA4 MEET SUMAETBACILR
.0 860020
" -"'�• - _ �� Inside City Llm#s: Outside City Un>es:
_ CITY OP D.M.s r rrr rr t .@. .
VGItGROV[: k `��� uwryerLw,R .... uu.Ntlrnrx
-� _ •y. �` s� f4Yl tlMMtF r r r r r Not BMlra1
.
s i ............ \ ... ...... L10 (ka
erg --- .
1I'�IC1f-'�•I `•M4kY
EXHIBIT E-1
30`h day=
ORDINANCE NO. 2302
CASE NO. LU 99-0020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
REGARDING SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS; AMENDING THE LAKE
OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION 48.20.535(4) (SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS).
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given
in the manner required by law, including notice to affected property owners pursuant to
Measure 56; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on July 17,
2001 to reN iew the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve application LU 99-
0020, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to LOC
48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did deliberate, adopt findings of fact and
conclusions, and make the following recommendations to the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego.
The Planning Commission recommends that LU 99-0020 be approved by the City Council.
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given
in the manner required by law; and
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 99-0020)
attached as Exhibit "A".
Section 2. Amendments to LOC 48.20.535(4)
Section 48.20.535(4) is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding
the new text shown in Bold Italics:
Section 48.20.535(4) Special Street Setbacks.
tetal fight of way whieh is the eemmen pFepei4y line between abutting es -pries to
arty-fead dedieation
25'
Can 25= 191
Egan Wa 2-5- l
Ordinance No. 2302EXHIBIT F-1
Page 1 of 6 O
2-5!
25!
2-5!
?-'
39'
2-S'
M!
2-S'
25!
23'
2-S!
2--S!
Z" --S'-
2S!
r.,/;A; l
-3,9•
34
25�
Blue -en R
w
r --A — D A
2-S"
2-5'
r- it St Frem T t St + n
. Rd 34
9A!E BF
-3,0
r'li' A -r T CIL t Tl t,.
6th St
South SheFe 1l
t T tep 7y -34
f'r i't heven t
Gr-eentrpe Rd
,.t....eed 38!
Glen LTV Rd ff ! r-eeRd
t W ..t V4ey, Ud w
"G" A ffem 2nd its
��\� it 111 t
j��}
-----/
1V
24
Lake Forest Dr. east thfu 'hlashmglen
Feny R�
C4404ieefm
Lake View -Blyd ftem Summit DF
to Ifen Mt B4vd
�a
✓V
rT
Lee St ffem Lafeh St te Aspen St
4Q
(east VrtiGst-FTy
3^
if
Ordinance No. 2302
Page 2 of 6
• '-
�- . ..
State ct ffem 4h . tith r:,., limit
54
r - n ..th and east f Kruse r: v
34
man Di' 'r
40=
a) Purpose. To preserve an obstruction free area along public rights-of-way in
anticipation of fixture street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and
street landscaping.
b) Establishment. A "special street setback reference line" is hereby established
for the streets identified in subsection (e), below. On these streets, required yards shall
be measured from the special street setback reference line.
Ordinance No. 2302 037
Page 3 of 6
c) Method of measurement. The reference line shall be established by measuring
the prescribed distance from the center of the right-of-way or as described in the
special street setback requirement.
d) Priority of other plans. Special street setbacks are minimums. If a greater
amount of additional right-of-way is warranted by improvements identified in a traffic
impact study, corridor study, or transportation system plait, they: the greater amount
shall prevail.
e) The special street setbacks set forth LOC 48.20.535(4)0 shall not be reduced.
1) Special Street Setback List
Affected Street
Front
To
Special Setback
Bangy Rd.
South of Alyssa
30 feet
Terrace
_
Ber is Rd.
Cornell St.
Stafford Rd. _
30 eet
Ber is Rd.
Cornell St.
Skyla» ds Dr.
25feet
Boones Ferry Road
Mercantile Dr.
West Sunset Dr.
50', but will be
superceded by the
City Council's
adoption of a
corridor stud
Bonita Rd.
30 feet
Bryant Rd.
Booties Ferry Rd
Lake New Blvd.
40 feet
Br ant Rd.
Lake View Blvd.
Childs Rd
30 eet
Burma Rd.
25feet
"C" Ave
State St. alley
Couni i, Club Rd
30feet _
Carman Drive
North and east of
30 feet
Kruse 11'a t'
Carinan Drive
South and west of
40 feet
Kruse Wa
Cornell St.
_
Larch St.
Ber is Rd
30 feet
Egan Way
Easdwest leg only
20eet
Fielding Rd.
—
20 feet
Firwood Road
30 feet between
1loones Ferry Rd.
and Waluga Dr.;
20' west of Waluga
Dr.
Gassner Ln
20 feet
_
Invertiric Rd.
North of
20 feet
Washin ton Ct. _
Count Club Rd.____
Knaus Rd. rom
North Ci Limits 30feet
Lake Grove Ave
20 eet
Lake View Blvd
Bryant Rd. I Iron Mt. Blvd 25feet
Ordinance No. 2302 038
Page 4 of 6
Lamont Way
20feet
Lanewood St.
Through south leg
o Dou las Circle
20 feet
Laurel St.
Der St.
Hallinan St.
30 eet _
Lower Dr.
20feet
MeV Avenue
State Street
South Shore Blvd
40 eet
.Madrona St
Booties Ferry
Bryant Rd (south
front railroad r/w
50 feet
North Shore Rd.
Abutting the
railroad right-of-way
30' measured from
the south line of the
railroad right-of-
wa
Oakridge Rd
Quarry Rd
Bonaire Ave.
25feet
Oakridge Rd.
Ouarry Rd
Booties Ferry Rd.
30feet
Overlook Dr.
30feet
Pilkington Road
South of Rosewood
St
Special street
setback line shall be
measured 30' from
the east line of
Rosewood Plat _
Quarry Rd
Booties Ferry Rd.
Galewood St. and
extension to
Carman Dr.
30 feet
1 Reese Rd.
1 Booties Ferry Rd
Upper Drive
30feet
Rosewood St.
Pilkin on Rd.
Tualatin St. _
25 eet i
South Shore Blvd
40feet
1 Stafford Rd
South Shore Blvd
south City limits
40feet
State Street
j
50feet
Summit Dr.
I Lake View Blvd.
Ridgewood Rd
20 feet
Sunset Dr.
20feet
Tualatin St.
20 feet
Twin Fir Rd.
Boones Ferry Rd.
Upper Dr.
30feet
Upper Dr.
Iron Mt. Blvd.
CUT limits
25feet
Waluga Dr.
South of Firwood Rd
20 feet
West Sunset Dr.
i
West of Lake Grove
Design District
Boundary
20 feet
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2044, Sec. 1; 11-19-91.)
Ordinance No. 2302 V39 ( '
Page 5 of 6
Read by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on day of , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST: Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
I.:\Casc Files\1999\LU 99 -0020 -special street setbacks\Sid\Drall ORD W99-0020.doc
Ordinance No. 2302 040 196
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF LAKE, OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner r74r7
SUBJECT: Frequently Asked Questions for Special Street Setback Code and Examples
of Special Street Setbacks
DATE: October 1, 2001
What are Special Street Setbacks?
A Special Street Setback (SSS) is a specified distance from the centerline of certain City roadways
specified in the Zoning code, from which setbacks for proposed development are to be measured.
The SSS list in the Zoning Code allows a property owner to locate their new structure or
addition outside of the area needed for future planned improvements identified on titre City's
Public Facilities Plan for Transportation.
What is the Purpose of the Special Street Setback?
The SSS is a transportation and land use planning tool used to preserve an obstruction -free area
along public rights-of-way in anticipation of future street improvements, such as additional lanes,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and
street landscaping.
Why are Amendments BeinE Proposed?
This section of the Code has not been updated since 1961, therefore, the list of streets has not been
updated to take into consideration expansion of the City limits (additional roadways), vacation of
some roadways and roadway improvements that have been completed so that an SSS is no longer
needed. The current list does not reflect these changes.
These amendments will also provide consistency between the SSS and the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP), Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Public Facilities Plan (PFP).
How is the Special Street Setback Code Applied?
Whenever a property owner applies for a land use application, the Special Street Setback list is
consulted for applicability. If the street the site is located on is listed, then the special street setback
dimension is found and applied. The dimension is measured from the center of the right-of-way and
a reference line is identified on the parcel. The reference line represents the edge of the desired
future half right-of-way. The zoning district's front yard setback (or street side -yard setback in the
case of corner lots) is then measured from this reference line. This is illustrated in Example 2,
FAQ for Special Street Setback Page 1 191?
041
EXHIBIT F-2
Example L WITHOUT SPECIAL STREET SETBACK
• Existing ROW 40 feet (20 feet each side from Centerline).
• R-7.5 Zoning, required front yard setback of 25 feet from property line.
• Right-of-way defined; a general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in a
strip, acquired for or devoted to public facilities improvements such as roadways, sidewalks,
utilities etc....
I
I
I• — • — • — . — . — . — . — . - . — --
I louse
.Ilouse
I
I
I
I Iluuse
I
I
I
i �♦
25'
Front
Yard
setback
Drawing is not to scale
FAQ for Special Street Setback
_ 40'
Existing ROW
I
I
I
I
20' --►�--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
042
setback
Page 2
vj
Example 2. WITH SPECIAL STREET SETBACK
• 30 feet, Special Street Setback from Center Line.
• 60 feet total right-of-way required based on street classification or proposed improvements
• Reference line is also known as the special street setback line and it represents the edge of
the possible right-of-way. The underlying zone's front yard setback is measured from this
line.
• Results in 10 additional feet in the front yard setback for total of 35 feet, based on R-7.5
front yard setback of 25 feet.
ReferenceLine Reference Line
40'
t / Existing ROW i I
21 20'
I I louse
i f 60'
"Total Special Setback / ---- - -- --
!_._._._._._._._. i _ _._._._._._._._
I
/
30' i 30' r
special �1� Special I
Street I Street �•
Setback i Setback—
._._._._._._._._.
l I
i
Req'd,
Rcy'd j 25'
25' - Zi Front
Front Yard
Yard setback
setback Results in 10 additional feet
for front yard setback for a
total of 35 feet.
Now. [hawing is not to scale
-AQ for Special Street Setback
043
Page 3 199
99
Example I NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH SPECIAL
STREET SETBACK (:applied on established roadway)
• Example of where a new home would be placed on a road with Special Street Setbacks
URM
Home that existed before application of Special Street Setback (25' total front yard
setback from 40' ROW)
® Home required to be constructed with Special Street Setback (35' total front yard
setback from 40' ROW)
• R-7.5 Zoning, required front yard setback of 25 feet from property line.
• Existing ROW 40 feet (20 feet each side from Centerline).
• 30' Special Setback Requirement (60' total for Right-of-way [ROW])
• Results:
o Existing home has a total front yard setback of 25'
o Newly constructed home a front yard setback of 35'
However, when the improvements are made:
• Existing house will have a total front yard setback of 15' resulting in non-
conformance with the front yard setback
• Nein house will have a total front yard setback of 25', meeting the front yard setback
requirement
'Mote: Drawing is not to scale
Front 40' Front
I I Yard Existing ROW Yard
setback setback
■ w -L
1' 10 4 20'-10-
^ `•
•/
SpecialTotal �.
Required
25 25'
Yard Yard
setback setback
-.,kQ for Special Street Setback 044 Page 4
200
Example 4. RESULTS FROM REMOVAL OF SPECIAL
STREET SETBACK(Line for measuring front yard setback
reverts back to the edge of right-of-way)
• 30', Special Street Setback from Center Line 60' total right-of-way
• The 10' of special setback right-of-way is removed from the property and the property
owner may build an addition in this area
• Line for measuring front yard setback reverts back to the edge of right-of-way of 40'
total (20' from center tine each side), as illustrated in Example 1.
///
./. With Special Street Setbacks
® Removal of Special Street Setbacks
aArea for potential expansion (10')
Note Drz%ing is not to scale
L Case Ftles'.1999\LU 99 -0020 -special stmt setbacks\City Council\FAQ.doc
FAQ for Special Street Setback 045
Page 5
20!
Req'd
Reference Line
'10 Font
I Rcq'd 25' '
40'
Yard
Front Yard
Existing ROW
setback
setiack
I
1
I— — —•— — — — —
20'
I
—�' 20'
j
j
f
I
i
60'
Total
Special Setback
/� lr/riirttir�fJirJirr/i
I
•
////!1///11//////
%
t/t///r//f/t J!///r////
i{30'
'
Special
—�I~ Special
1
Street
Sreet
j Street
_._._.—._•—•—•— I
I
Setback
j Sciback
j
I
r
I
j
I
I
I
Rcy'd
I
j
_j_._._ _._._._._._
i
Area for potential
25'
Front
Revh'd
25'I
Area for potential
expansion (10')
Yard
i
Front
expansion (10')
setback
Yafd
I
I'
settack
Note Drz%ing is not to scale
L Case Ftles'.1999\LU 99 -0020 -special stmt setbacks\City Council\FAQ.doc
FAQ for Special Street Setback 045
Page 5
20!
BEFORE & AFTER AMENDMENT SUMMARY
Special Street Setbacks
"Remove Special Setback"= Setback reverts back to front yard setback as required by underlying zone
"No Change"= Remains on Special Street Setback list with no change to description or setback requirement
Yeriow Highlight= Modification of either Special Street Setback requirement or change of street description
Existing Street Description
xis Ing
Special
Setback
New Street Description
New Special
Setback
) Aspen St from Lee St to Parrish St (south from south
,w line)
30'
Remove Special Setback
2) Ber is Rd from Cornell St to Sk lands Dr
25'
No Change
3i Ber is Rd from Cornell St to Stafford Rd
30'
No Change
-1) Bickner St from Hemlock St to Cedar St
25'
Remove Special Setback
5) Blue Heron Rd
20'
Remove Special Setback
) Boones Ferry Rd within City Limits
40'
Boones Ferry Rd -Mercantile Dr
to West Sunset Dr
50', but will be
superseded by the
adopon of
Boones Ferthe
ry
Corridor Study
-) Bryant Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Lake View Blvd
40'
No Change
Bryant Rd from Lake View Blvd to Childs Rd
30'
No Change
?) "C" Ave from State St alley to Country Club Rd
30'
No Change
0) Carman Dr north and east of Kruse Way
30'
Remove Special Setback
l Carman Dr south and west of Kruse Way
40'
Remove Special Setback
2 i Canal Circle
25'
Remove Special Setback
'31 Cedar Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
'-1 i Chandler Rd from Iron Mountain Blvd to 10th St
30'
Remove Special Setback
' 5) Chapin Rd to south City limits
25'
Remove Special Setback
16) Cornell St from Larch St to Ber is Rd
30'
No Change
172 Egan Way
25'
Egan Way (east/west leg only,
delete north/south le)
20'
' ?) Ellis Ave from Lake Forest Dr to 6th St
25'
Remove Special Setback
'91) Fernwood Dr from South Shore Dr to Treetop Ln
30'
Remove Special Setback
Fernwood Dr from Treetop Ln to Marjorie Ave
25'
Remove Special Setback
" . Fir Ridge Rd from Twin Fir Rd to Wembley Park Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
22) Firwood Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Bonaire Ave
30' 1
Firwood Rd
30' between
Boones Ferry
Rd and
Waiuga Dr;
20' west of
iWaluga Dr
047 -----
Matrix BeforeAfter.xls EXHIBIT F•3 Page 1
23)
Foothills Rd
30'
Remove Special Setback
4)
"G" Ave from 2nd St to 7th St (north from north r/w
line)
12
20'
Remove Special Setback
25)
Glen Haven Rd from Greentree Rd to West View Rd 30'
Remove Special Setback
26)
Greentree Rd from Glen Haven to Fernwood Dr
30'
Remove Special Setback
27)
Haven St from Bryant Rd to Lake Haven Dr
25'
Remove Special Setback
28)
Knaus Rd from Country Club Rd to north City limits
30'
Knaus Rd
29)
Lake Forest Dr east through Washington Ct to
Boones Ferry Rd
30'
Remove Special Setback
30)
Lake Front Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
33)
Lake Grove St from Reese Rd to Upper Dr
30'
Lake Grove Ave
20'
32)
Lake Haven Dr from Bernard St to Canal Circle
25'
lRemove Special Setback
Lake View Blvd from Bryant Rd
33)
Lake View Blvd from Bryant Rd to Summit Dr
25'
to Iron Mountain Blvd
25'
34)
Lake View Blvd from Summit Dr to Iron Mountain
Bivd
30'
Remove Special Setback
35)
Lamont Way
25'
Lamont Way
20'
Lane Wood St through south
36)
Lanewood St through south leg of Douglas Circle
25'
leg of Douglas Circle
20'
3 7 )
Laurel St from Dyer St to Hallinan St
30'
No Change
38)
Lee St from Larch St to Aspen St (east from east
r Nv line)
30'
Remove Special Setback
39)
Lords Ln from Bryant Rd to Lake Haven Dr
25'
Remove Special Setback
Lower Dr from Boones Ferry to
0)
Lower Dr from Boones Ferry to Bryant Rd (south
Bryant Rd (south from railroad
from
railroad r/w)
50'
r/w)
20'
141)
Stafford Rd from South Shore
McVey Ave from Kilkenny to south City limits
30'
Blvd
40'
McVey Ave from State St to
2)
McVey Ave from State St to Kilkenny
40'
South Shore Blvd
30' measured
from the south
line of the
North Shore Rd abutting the
railroad right -
3)
North Shore Rd from its terminus east to State St
25'
railroad right-of-way
of -way
44) Oakridge Rd from Quarry Rd to Bonaire Ave
25'
Oakridge Rd
25'
45)
Oakridge Rd from Quarry Rd to Boones Ferry Rd
30'
No Change
-:6)
Oak St from McVey Ave west
25'
Remove Special Setback
4�)
Oak St from State St to McVey Ave
30'
t;emove Special Setback
48) Oak Terrace from Palisades Terrace to its west
to -minus
25'
Ronuwe Special Setback
49)
Overlook Dr
30'
No Change
53)
Palisades Terrace Rd from South Shore Blvd to
`grace Dr
25'
Remove. Special Setback
'' ;
Parrish St from Hemlock St to McVey Ave (west
east r/w line)
50'
Ronlove Special Setback
048
MatrixBeforeAfter. xls
Page 2
30' measured
from the east
2)
limits
Pilkington Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to south City
Pilkington Rd south of
line of
Rosewood
Pine Valley Rd
30'
25'
Rosewood St
Remove Special Setback
Plat
5.1)
quarry Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Galewood St
1531
anc
55)
extension to Carman Dr
Reese Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Upper Dr
30'
30'
No Change
No Change
-545)
Rid ecrest Dr from Uplands Dr to Crest Dr
25'
Remove Special Setback
-'
Ridgeway Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
58)
Rosewood St from Boones Ferry Rd to Pilkington
Rd
30'
Remove Special Setback
59)
Rosewood St from Pilkington Rd to Tualatin St
25'
No Change
50) Royce Way adjacent to Westridge School site, both
`'des
30'
Remove Special Setback
i
6th St from Ellis Ave to Evergreen Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
2)
South Shore Blvd (Entire Len th
40'
South Shore Blvd
-3)
State St from north to south City limits
50'
No Change
) Summit Dr from Lake View Blvd to Iron Mountain
Summit Dr between Lakeview
Btvd
25'
Blvd and Ridgewood Rd
20'
5)
Sunset Dr from Bryant Rd to Reese Rd
25'
Sunset Dr
20'
Terrace Dr from Oak Terrace to Palisades Terrace
=cd
25'
Remove Special Setback
-'
Troon Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
1
Tualatin St from Lower Dr to Lake View Blvd
25'
Tualatin St
20'
_9
'Twin Fir Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Upper Dr
30'
No Change
Upper Dr from Iron Mountain
'0)
Upper Dr from Iron Mountain Blvd to west City limits
30'
Blvd to west City limits
25'
','iembley Park Rd from Twin Fir Rd to Country Club
30'
Remove Special Setback
-2)
West Bay Rd from South Shore Blvd to Bryant RD
30'
Remove Special Setback
'3
Westward Ho Rd
25'
Remove Special Setback
-�
N ,'Iow Ln from Boones Ferry Rd to Pilkington Rd
30'
Remove Special Setback
_ase` esi1999/IU99-0020/MairixBeforeAtter.xis
049
MatrixBeforeAfter.
xls
Page 3
DELETION (44)
SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS
1) Aspen St. from Lee St. to Parrish St. (south from south r/w line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Frontage property is city -owned, and slated for a new reservoir.
Roadway and sidewalk improvements will be designed in concert with reservoir land use
application.
Comment: Not needed on special street setback list, as city controls adjacent property.
2) Bickner Street from Hemlock to Cedar
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow lane, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Very low traffic volume. Existing street is short and provides access to only
three lots. It is more appropriately considered an alley. The neighborhood is established
and has limited redevelopment potential. Adjacent street system adequately gridded.
3) Blue Heron Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Improvement Plans: None
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
4) Carman Drive north and east of Kruse Way
5) Carman Drive south and west of Kruse Way
Functional Classification: Major Collector between I-5 and Fosberg Road
Neighborhood Collector between Fosberg Rd and Touchstone
Comments: Adequate right of way and necessary improvements are underway or
completed.
6) Canal Circle
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
7) Cedar Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
8) Chandler Road from Iron Mountain Boulevard to 10`h Street
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Gaps in sidewalk/pathway system
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway
Comment: Existing 60' ROW is adequate for anticipated improvements.
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 051 Page 1
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 30, 2001 207
9) Chapin Road to south City Limits
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 46' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
10) Egan Way
Functional Classification: Local Street
Comment: Delete only the north/south leg of Egan Way
11) Ellis Avenue from Lake Forest Drive to Sixth Street
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
12) Fernwood Drive from South Shore Boulevard to Tree Top Lane
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Gaps in pathway/sidewalk system
Improvement Plans: Added sidewalk
Comment: Existing 50' ROW is adequate for anticipated improvements
13) Fernwood Drive from Treetop Lane to Marjorie Avenue
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Added sidewalk
Comment: Existing 50' ROW already meets requirement
14) Fir Ridge Road from Twin Fir Road to Wembley Park Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
15) Foothills Road
Functional classification: Local Street (industrial)
Inadequacies: Gaps in sidewalk system
Improvement Plans: None
Comments: Existing ROW is adequate for any anticipated improvements.
16) "G" Avenue from 2"d Street to 7'h Street (north from north right of way line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Adopted First Addition Neighborhood Plan requires keeping G Avenue at its
original platted dimension, thereby eliminating a potential for widening the right of way.
The FAN Plan has been codified.
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 052
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 30, 2001
Page 2
208
17) Glen Haven Road from Greentree Road to West View Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
18) Greentree Road from Glen Haven Road to Fernwood Drive
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Large gaps in sidewalk system
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway, fill in sidewalk gaps
Comment: Existing 50' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
19) Haven Street from Bryant Road to Lake Haven Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements. Unimproved
western stub (connecting to Bryant) has been vacated since adoption of this list.
20) Lake Forest Drive east through Washington Court to Boones Ferry Road
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Westbound left turn lane on Lake Forest Drive at Cannan Drive
Comment: Incorrect, confusing nomenclature; this road does not connect to Boones Ferry
Road. Anticipated improvements at the intersection with Carman Drive have not been
designed, and existing homes in the vicinity of intersection improvements appear to have
adequate setbacks.
21) Lake Front Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, narrow lanes, limited on -street parking,
constrained turnaround
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 30' ROW adequate for minor widening. Topographic restraints
prevent significant road expansion. Many lot owners have obtained variances to front
setback requirements for new construction and remodeling.
22) Lake Haven Drive from Bernard Street to Canal Circle
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
23) Lakeview Boulevard from Summit Drive to Iron Mountain Boulevard
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, narrow lanes, impaired sight distance on
curves
Improvement Plans: Shoulder pathway between Twin Fir Road and Iron Mountain
Boulevard
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for anticipated improvements
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 6513 Page 3
Planning Commission Public Nearing, May 30, 2001 2 0 9
24) Lee Street from Larch Street to Aspen Street (east from east right of way
line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Very short segment, north end of street is unimproved and platted over a cliff,
south end serves as driveway to two homes. Existing 40' right of way is adequate.
25) Lords Lane from Bryant Road to Lake Haven Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
26) North Shore Rd. from its terminus east to State St.
Functional Classification: Local Street
Comment: Delete that portion of North Shore Rd. between Cabana Ln. and State St.
27) Oak Street from McVey Avenue west
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Corrected since list was adopted
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: West end partially vacated since list was adopted; remaining segment is 60'
ROW and has been improved with development.
28) Oak Street from State Street to McVey Avenue
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Erroneous inclusion existing ROW already satisfies requirement
29) Oak Terrace from Palisades Terrace to its west terminus
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Two-lane dead-end serving six lots. Roadway benched -in along a cliff through
recently acquired nature reserve. No improvements envisioned.
30) Palisades Terrace from South Shore Boulevard to Terrace Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Discontinuous sidewalks
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements.
31) Parrish Street from Hemlock Street to McVey Avenue (west from east right
of way line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: None
Improvement Plans: None
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks O 5 d
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 30, 2001
Page 4
21U
Comment: Adjacent property has been redeveloped with variances to setback
requirements. Curbing and sidewalk improvements have been completed in existing
ROW.
32) Pine Valley Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
33) Ridgecrest Drive from Uplands Drive to Crest Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: This is a low volume, 200- foot long street. A patimaY could be
constructed in the existing 30 -foot ROW.
34) Ridgeway Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
35) Rosewood Street from Boones Ferry Road to Pilkington Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, no turnaround.
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: This street was dead -ended when Boones Ferry Road was widened. Existing
right of way is adequate except for a turnaround at the west terminus, which could be
obtained as a condition of redevelopment.
36) Royce Way adjacent to Westridge School site, both sides
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Shared roadway bike lane
Comment: Obsolete setback requirement; all required right of way has been obtained.
37) 6`h Street from Ellis Avenue to Evergreen Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, narrow lanes
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 50' ROW adequate
38) Summit Dr. from Lakeview Blvd to Iron Mt. Blvd.
Functional Classification: Local Street
Comment: Delete that portion between Ridgewood Rd. and Iron Mt. Blvd.
39) Terrace Drive from Oak Terrace to Palisades Terrace Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Discontinuous sidewalk north-cide-none on south side
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks !/ X477 Page 5
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 30, 2001 til 1
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing right of way adequate
40) Troon Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
41) Wembley Park Road from Twin Fir Road to Country Club Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Lack of pedestrian access to elementary school corrected since list was
adopted
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway
Comments: Pathway successfully constructed in existing 50' ROW, 1999
42) West Bay Road from South Shore Boulevard to Bryant Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: This street was once envisioned as a fully improved through street, but
became the subject of a traffic calming diversion project. Existing 50' ROW (west end)
and 40' ROW (east end) are adequate.
43) Willow Lane from Boones Ferry Road to Pilkington Road
Functional classification: Local Street (industrial)
Inadequacies: Corrected since list was adopted
Improvement Plans: None
Comments: Extra right of way has been acquired and street fully improved, 1993-94
44) Westward Ho Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Improvement Plans: None
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
LACase Files\I999ULU 99 -0020 -special street setbacks\Sid\deletionsList.doc
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 056
Planning Commission Public Hearing, May 30, 2001
Page 6
21':
NO CHANGE t14)
Special Street Setback
STREET DESCRIPTION
SPECIAL STREET
Total
SETBACK (From Center
Right -of -
line of Roadway)
way
Required
1 Ber is Rd. from Cornell St. to Stafford Rd.
30'
60'
2) Bergis Rd. from Cornell St. to Skylands Dr.
25'
50'
3) Bryant Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to Lake
40'
80'
View Blvd.
4) Bryant Rd. from Lake View Blvd. To Childs
30'
60'
Rd
5) "C" Ave. from State St. to alley to Country
30'
60'
Club Rd.
_ —
6 Cornell St. from Larch St. to Ber is Rd.
30'
60'
7 Laurel St. from Dyer St. to Hallinan St
30'
60'
8) Oakridge Rd. from Quarry Rd. to Boones
30'
60'
Ferry Rd.
9 Overlook Dr.
30'
60'
10) Quarry Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to
30'
60'
Galewood St. and extension to Cannan Dr.
11) Reese Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to Upper
30'
60'
Dr.
112) State St. from north to south City limits
50'
100'
i 13) Twin Fir Rd. from Boones Femy Rd. to
30'
60'
1 Upper Dr.
14) Rosewood St. from Pilkington Rd. to
25'
50'
Tualatin St.
I
No Change, Special Street Setback 0 5 7
City Council Public Hearing October I I
Page 1 2 1 S
MODIFICATION (19)
Special Street Setbacks
1) Boones Ferry Road within City limits
Functional Classification: Major arterial between I-5 and Country Club Road; minor
arterial between Country Club Road and north city limits.
Inadequacies: Center left turn lanes needed in certain areas, no bike lanes over majority
of corridor, areas with no sidewalks or substandard sidewalks.
Improvement Plans: Lane widening and bike lanes in the Kruse Way to Madrona
corridor, intersection improvements at various locations, bike lanes from Country Club
Road to north city limits.
Comment: Existing ROW varies from 60' to over 80' (near major intersections). The
section between the Tualatin city limits and Madrona Street have been widened, and the
necessary right of way or easements have been acquired.
The City is engaged in a corridor study for the section between Madrona Street and
Mercantile Drive. The study will have specific right of way recommendations that will,
upon adoption by the City Council, become the special street setbacks for that section.
Until that study is finalized and adopted however, it would be prudent to have an interim
method in place. Staff anticipates that the ultimate improvements will consist of five
lanes with bike paths, landscape strips and 8 -foot sidewalks. These street improvements
will require a 94'-100' ROW.
The section of Boones Ferry Road between Country Club Road and the north city limits
is a minor arterial and should retain its special street setback designation of 40 feet.
Recommended Modification:
1) Increase the special street setback from 40' to 50' for the section between West
Sunset Drive and Mercantile Drive, with a proviso that this dimension will be superseded
by the Council's adoption of a corridor study for the affected area.
2) Egan Way
Functional Classification: Local street
Inadequacies: narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: North/south leg has adequate ROW. East/west leg has inadequate ROW for
possible future widening or pedestrian improvements, but the special street setback is
[3K-1-1.YIYO
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as: Egan Way--east/west leg
2) Reduce the special street setback from 25' to 20'
059
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001
Page 1 215
3) Firwood Road from Boones Ferry Road to Bonaire Avenue
Functional classification: Local street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodations.
Improvement Plans: Bike lanes between Boones Ferry Road and Waluga Drive
Comment: The existing special street setback of 30' should be retained for the section of
roadway between Boones Ferry Road and Waluga Drive to permit the future bike lanes to
meander among the significant trees along this street. West of Waluga Drive, a standard
40' ROW will be adequate.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Firwood Road
2) Reduce the special street as follows: Between Boones Ferry Road and
Waluga Drive, 30'. West of Waluga Drive, 20'.
4) Knaus Rd. from Country Club Rd. to north City limits
Functional Classification: Neighborhood Collector
Comment: Delete the description of Knaus Rd. (i.e. "from Country club Rd. to north
City limits"
Recommended Modification: New description, Knaus Rd.
5) Lakeview Boulevard from Bryant Road To Summit Drive
Functional Classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, limited sight distance on curves, poor pedestrian
accommodation through the curves at the east end.
Improvement Plans: A pathway has been constructed along the westerly two-thirds of this
segment. The TSP calls for completing the path through the curves to the east.
Comment: Topographic constraints will force the construction of transportation
improvements to occur in the narrowest possible right of way, especially through the
curves at the east end. Even so, slope easements or limited right of way acquisition could
become necessary because the road is not centered in the right of way. Proposed pathway
improvements will run to Iron Mountain Boulevard. The area is built -out, with little
potential for redevelopment or building additions that would jeopardize required right of
way acquisition.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Lakeview Boulevard frons Bryant Road to Iron Mountain
Boulevard.
6) Lake Grove Street from Reese Road to Upper Drive
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Spotty improvements, right of way varies from 30' to 50'.
Improvement Plans: Shared bike lanes (implying minor road widening), pathway on one
side.
060
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 2
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001 9 16
Comment: Road/sidewalk improvements have been completed at the west end, which is
zoned for commercial and high density uses. Anticipated improvements could fit in a 40'
ROW through the lower density zoning.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Lake Grove Avenue
2) Reduce the special street setback from 30' to 20'.
7) Lamont Way
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, no accommodations for the pedestrian
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The majority of the right of way is 30' wide. Unconnected, irregular
dedications have occurred along the frontage of small developments. Lamont Springs
Natural Area has a long frontage on the north side. A church is located midblock on the
south side. The existing special street setback is excessive to accommodate modest
pedestrian improvements.
Recommended Modification:
1) Reduce the special street setback from 25'to 20'.
8) Lanewood Street through south leg of Douglas Circle
Functional Classification: Local street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, poor pedestrian accommodation.
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway, presumably along the south side of
Lanewood and connecting through onto the south side of the Douglas Circle loop.
Comment: Lanewood street is a hodgepodge of varying ROW width. Douglas Circle's
ROW is 30' wide. Two lanes and a pathway can be constructed in a standard 40' ROW.
Recommended Modification:
1) Reduce the special street setback from 25 to 20'.
9) Lower Drive from Boones Ferre Road to Bryant Road (.South frons railroad
right of way)
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodations.
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Since this code was drafted, Rosewood was been dead -ended at Boones Ferry
Road, eliminating its potential of being a through street.
Recommended Modification:
1) Reduce the special street setback from 25 to 20'.
10) McVey Ave from Kilkenny to south City limits
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial
Comments: McVey redescribed as Stafford Rel from South Shore Blvd.
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks 061 Page 3 2 17
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001
11) McVey Ave from State Street to Kilkenny
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial
Comment: Revise description, McVey only goes to South Shore Blvd.
Recommended Modification: New Description, McVey Ave from State Street to South
Shore Boulevard.
12) North Shore road from its terminus east to State Street
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no accommodations for the pedestrian
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The right of way is adequate except for a narrow section along the railroad
right of way.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as North Shore Road abutting the railroad right of way.
2) Redescribe the special street setback as 30' measured fi•oni the south lire of
the railroad right of way.
13) Oakridge Road from Quarry Road to Bonaire Avenue
Functional Classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, poor accommodations for pedestrians
Improvement Plans: Bike lanes between Boones Ferry and Quarry
Comment: The functional classification has been expanded to include the section
between Quarry Road and Waluga Drive. If sidewalks or meandering paths are required
as a condition of redevelopment or infill, the existing 30 and 40' ROW will be
inadequate.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Oakridge Road
14) Pilkington Road from Boones Ferry Road to south City limits (entire length)
Functional classification: Major Collector
Inadequacies: Lacking bike lanes/ sidewalks in many areas.
Improvement plans: Intersection improvements (add left turn lanes) at Jean Road and
Childs Road, add bike lanes and sidewalks.
Comment: Potential additional right of way must be preserved free of structures,
especially on the east side north of Jean Road. There is sufficient right of way between
Boones Ferry Road and Rosewood Street. The existing 30' special street setback has
proven to be effective. The description should be modified to remove the reference to the
city limits, as this is a moving target, and the City's planning efforts extend into the
unincorporated area up to Childs Road.
Secondly, this right of way is comprised of two "unequal halves," which has led to
different interpretations of where the centerline is located for the purpose of establishing
062
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 4 t b
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001 1
a setback reference line. Is it the arithmetic split of the existing right of way or is it the
line where abutting plats meet in the right of way? After taking into consideration past
practice, historic development patterns, and the need to have proper intersection
alignments in the future, staff finds that the special street setback line should be measured
from the east line of Rosewood plat.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Pilkington Road south of Rosewood Street
2) Prescribe that the special street setback line shall be measured as 30' from the
east line of Rosewood plat.
15) South Shore Boulevard (Entire length)
Functional Classification: Major Collector
Inadequacies: Lack of separated bike and pedestrian facilities.
Improvement Plans: Intersection improvements (left turn lanes) at Westview Drive and
Fernwood Drive, add pathway on south side, bike lanes on both sides.
Comment: Anticipated improvements and extremely variable topographic conditions
warrant keeping the existing 40' special street setback. The description should be
modified to begin with the street name.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as South Shore Boulevard
16) Summit Drive from Lakeview Boulevard to Iron Mountain Rontlevard
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, poor sight distance around curves, no pedestrian
accommodation.
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The existing right of way varies between 30' and 40'. The inadequate area is
limited to the section of roadway between Lakeview Boulevard and Ridgewood Road.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Summit Drive between Lakeview Boulevard and Ridgewood
Road.
2) Modify the special street setback from 25' to 20'.
17) Sunset Drive from Bryant Road to Reese Road
Functional Classification: Local street
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The ROW varies from 30' to 40'. Full width street improvements have been
accomplished at the east end along the Lake Grove Presbyterian Church properties. The
improvements fit in a 40' ROW. The description does not need to cite the intersection
streets at each end.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Sunset Drive.
2) Modify the special street setback from 25' to 201
.
$63
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 5 i
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001
18) Tualatin Street from Lower Drive to Lakeview Boulevard
Functional Classification: Local street
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Anticipated improvements could fit in a 40' ROW. The description does not
need to cite the intersecting streets at each end.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re -describe as Tualatin Street
2) Reduce the special street setback from 25'to 20'.
19) Upper Drive from Icon Mountain Boulevard to west City limits
Functional Classification: Neighborhood collector between Bryant Road and Iron
Mountain Boulevard; local street west of Bryant Road.
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, gaps in pathway system, no bike lanes
Improvement Plans: Shared roadway bike lane between Twin Fir Road and the Iron
Mountain Boulevard/Lakeview Boulevard/Upper Drive traffic circle. Add shoulder
pathway between Reese Road and Bryant Road. Install traffic signal at Upper/Bryant
intersection.
Comment: Existing 30' ROW is too narrow for anticipated improvements. Existing
special street setback of 30 feet, however, is excessive.
1) Reduce the special street setback from 30' to 25'.
LACase Files\1999\LU 99 -0020 -special street setbacks\Sid\moditicationsList.doc
064
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 6 2 2.()
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001
ADD LIST (11)
Special Street Setback
I-- casefiles/1999/lu-99-0020/AdditonMatrix. xls
065
Special
Setback
Required
Total Special
Anticipated Improvements
Total Existing
(from
Street Setback
based on Transportation
Street Description
Right-of-way
centerline)
Required
System Plan (TSP)
Complete curbing in missing
Bangy Rd, south of Alyssa
sections, add bike and pedestrian
Terrace
40'
30'
60'
facilities
Pavement widening, drainage,
varies, primarily
bike and pedestrian
i Bonita Rd
40'
30'
60'
improvements
Pavement widening, drainage,
40'-50', offset
bike and pedestrian
Burma Rd
legal centerline
25'
50'
improvements
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
} Fielding Rd
30'
20'
40'
improvements
varies,
substandard on
Pedestrian and drainage
} Gassner Ln
west side
20'
40'
improvements
inverurie Rd, north of
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
A'ashin ton Ct
30'
20'
40'
improvements
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
"i Madrona St
30'
20'
40'
improvements
Capacity improvements, added
lanes at intersections, bike lanes,
= Stafford Rd
varies 40'-80'
40'
80'
sidewalks
Waluga Dr, south of Firwood
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
Rd
30'
20'
40'
improvements
0) Washington Ct, west of
Pavement widening to minimum
_ake Forest Blvd and Boones
varies, typically
standards (20'), drainage swales,
Ferry Rd
40'
25'
50'
sidewalks or pathways
` 1) West Sunset, west of Lake
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
Grove Design District Boundary
30'
20'
40'
jimprovements
I-- casefiles/1999/lu-99-0020/AdditonMatrix. xls
065
'.
R
�
1) Ensure that new structures on a property
are placed in areas where they will not
interfere with future planned improvement
to the right-of-way g y
Z) Ensure that any new structures or surface
improvements are set back far enough
from the future rights-of-way so they will
remain in compliance with the
required front yard setback, after the
additional right-of-way is dedicated or
acquired,
Think of it as.
1) A Transportation Planning Tool to manage
future transportation improvements.
2) A way to preserve an obstruction -free
area along public rights-of-way for future
improvements, such as additional lanes,
bike and pedestrian facilities, transit
facilities, drainage and landscaping
improvements.
3
f
Proposed ZoningCode.Text Amendments:
l ' Update the list of roadwa s that are subject to the
>Y �
Special Street Setback Code Section. This results
in the special street setback being added, deleted,
modified or not s. changed on some roadways.
Y
2) Clarify the Purpose and Method of Measurement
to ensure that it provides for all type's ofp lanned
transportation improvements and provides for a
simplified method of measurement.
4
r
*74 original roadways, reduced clown to 44
*44 = Removal of SSS Designation
* 19 = Modification of roadways
*11 = Addition of, roadways
* 14 = No Change of roa(Iways
®= Remove SSS Designation
Yello = Modification
®= No change
®— No Change
lashed lines = Outside City
Limit, brit inside USB � ;
1) Broaden "Purpose Statement" to include
,reference to include pedestrian and bike facilities
transit facilities, drainage improvements, lighting
and streetscape amenities.
2) Clarify "Method of Measurement" by directing
the user to take the SSS measurement from the
established centerline of the right-of-way, rather
than basing the measurement on the common
property lien between abutting properties prior to
any road dedication.
a s
•Special Street Setbacks have been in our code since 1961.
'city Boundaries have changed (need to be added to list)
• Roadways have been vacated (need to be deleted from.list)
• New roadways have been constructed (need to be added to list)
• Improvements completed on roadways (need to be deleted or
modified on list)
• Update this section of the Code to be consistent with the City's
Transportation Systems Plan (TSP), Public Facilities .Plan
,(PFO) and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).
01)
I V U: 1. 1 V
The'City Would:
Not be planning for the future, which could
result in problems when improvements are
constructed.
• Be requiring specialstreet setbacks on
properties when they are not necessary.
• Not be able to acquire the rights-of-way
required for future proposed improvements.
K
• Example 1, Without Special Street Setbacks.
R-7.5 Zoning
• 25' Front Yard Setback
• 40' Total ROW (20' each side from centerline)
• Example 2, With Special Street Setbacks.
• SSS of 30' = 60' Total ROW (30' each side from
centerline)
•
Example Construction of a House with Special
Street Setbacks.
Example 4,_Results from Removal of Special Street
Setbacks.
M
Existing ROW, 40 feet (20 feet each side from Centel- Line).
R-7.5 zoning i%ith required front yard setback of 25 feet from ROW line.
• Right-Of-NN'ay (RONN') defined: A general term.denoting land usually in a
strip, acquired for public facilities improvements such as roadway's,, sidewalks
and utilities.
20' 20'--*
F�I
25' trent
25, front yard
yard setback 10
Not to Scale sohack �
*If a SSS calls for 30' setback, it w oul(I result in ,60' total ROW (30' eacli side of
centerline) .
*The 30' setback is measured from the Centerline of the existing ROW, then the front
yard setback is measure from there.
*Results in 10 additional feet in the front yard setback for total of 35 feet, based on R-
7.5 front yard setback of 25 feet.
40' existing
Reference I., i lie ---_ _ ___♦ '- ROW ♦ r- Reference Line
60' future
ROW Rcq.
30' ' ►� 30' ---
25' front 25' front
Yai'cly`u-d
Not to Scale IZes��lts in I ()' setback
s(.thack ,lcicfiti��i�tll -
*30' Special Street Setback, results in bll' total right-of-way.
EXIS'I'ING Moine before SSS (25' front yard setback)
❑ NEW home required to be constructed with SSS (35' front yard setback
from 40' ROW)
*However, when improvements were made on this roadway, an existing
house would have a front yard setback. of 15' and the new, 25'.
25' setback
40
.,- 201 --►.---20' —#
r h
0!-- ---30'
Not to Scale 25' setback 1
*As a result of removal of the Special Street Setback, a property gains the ability
to build on 10 additional feet in the front yard. Showl) in the area below.
[❑ Home required to be constructed with SSS (35' front yard setback from 40'
ROW)
Home after removal of SSS, setback reverts back to 25'
front yard setback from existing 40' ROW
60' ROW
for SSS
30 30
I
Not to Scale 40' __ __►
ROW
Area 1`61, poi ential
nt
Area for poteial tient varcl
expansion 13
c\pansioll scthack
Page Left Blank
14
- --- - -- -- ---- --- - expansion
expansion setback
*Removal of SSS DOES NOT increase the overall square footage of a
lot, it simply allows a property owner to potentially build in an area
where they were, not allowed to build before.
•Allows for,potential to expand in front yard where SSS has been
removed. ;
M
*In situations where extra ROW was already dedicated, that portion
of ROW may be vacated, if requested by property owner and
puptiant to Council appruvaL,
i
i i 15
�--- 2 0' -►•- 2 0'-►
Old ROW ling/I Arca between arrows is the old
ROW, which reverts back to the
prpperty that dedicated it.
' Vacation of the ROW means the City has given up rights to make any
future transportation improvements, ROW is given back to abutting
property owners (in full or partial vacation).
6Vacation increases the square footage of the lot, which could result in
additional partition of the lot. 16
I
^rt
•Does not necessarily increase the opportunity for a
property to partition because removal of SSS does not
increase the square footage of a lot (lot either has the'square
footage to partition or it does not).
•D_ provide potential opportunity to expand house in the
front of the yard.
Y
Map 1 — All R'esidentia,l Properties Zoned R-6, R-7.5, R-10
& R-15 where SSS is being removed.
Map 2- All Residential Properties that are twice the size or
more of the minimum square footage required for zoning,
17'
Remove of SSS on these ro.,id ays
Identities Residentially zoned properties (R-6, 7.5, 10 & 15)
• There are 1,005 properties within the above residential zoning districts.
18
Zoning
Sq. Ft. Req. for
Zoning
# of Lots
# of Lots Twice the
Size Required
12-6
6,000 sq. ft.
10
1
R-7.5
7,500 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
15,000 sq. ft.
611
270
114
133
64
19
`
R-10
R-15
Totals
Properties that ai•e twice the size of required lot
Page Left Blank
SUMMARY:
*Removal of SSS does not increase size of the lot, therefore the ,run1her of
partitionable lots will most likely remain the same, at 217.
*Remo.val of the SSS only reduces the front yard setback, which -might result in.
the increase in. the building foot print in the front of the house.
*Of the 1,005 lots, there are 217 rots that might have the potential for partition,
prior to .removal of SSS., This number will likely not change after removal of SSS.
•Of the 217 lots! many of them may not be partitionable due to the placement of
the existing house and natural resources constraints..
CONCLUSION:
•lt is unlikely that additional lots will be created by removal of SSS.
• Lots will have the opportunity to increase the size of the building footprint, at the
' front of the house.
r.
RECOM M EN DATION:
*The Planning Commission.recommends approval of AJ 99-0020.
9
0
7.4
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/10/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
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:
Moved 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.
ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: S
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Report dated
October 9, 2001
• Exhibit A - Excerpt frorn
formal Ordinance 2310
• Exhibit B - Formal
Ordinance 2310 per
10/2/01 discussion
• Exhibit C - Excerpt from
Councilor Graham's
proposal
• Exhibit D - Formal
Ordinance 2310 -
Councilor Graham's
proposal
NOTICED (Date):
September 7, 2001
Ordinance no.: 2310
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration: September 4 and
October 2, 2001
'CITY ATTORNEY CITY NAGER
signoff/date
M:\0rd\Rpt-Cov-0rd2310.doc
signoff/date
J.'.5
To: Council
From: Judie
For discussion re: temporary sign ordinance
The issues that are still in contention are:
Days of week: A: Tuesdays and Weekends
B: Add Fridays
Times of day: A: Tuesdays 9-3; Weekends 10-6
B: 8 am all accepted days
Height: A: 24"
B: 30"
Corners: A: Restrictions on corners
B: No restrictions on corners
Through the information session with the realtors and this morning's
discussion, it appeared that the other issues have been settled. You are, of
course, free to bring up anything else that concerns you.
City Attorney's Office
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
From: David D. Powell, City Attorney .J_e
Date: October 9, 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. Local realtors have asked the
City 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, or at
corners of intersections.
• Signs may not obstruct access from sidewalks to transit stops, disabled parking spaces or
building exits.
Council Report
October 9, 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.
• Signs would be prohibited on any sidewalk.
• Signs may not obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone of at least five feet in width.
• 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.).
Based upon the Council's discussion at the October 2, 2001 Information Session, the proposed
ordinance was edited as follows:
• The "sunset clause", which would have repealed the ordinance after one year, was
deleted.
• The requirement that signs be at least two feet behind the curb was deleted.
• The width of the protected "through pedestrian zone" was changed from six feet to five
feet.
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. .
COUNCILOR GRAHAM'S PROPOSAL
Councilor Graham has asked that the City Council consider a number of changes to the proposed
ordinance. These changes are detailed on Exhibit C (new material in bold type, deleted material
shown by sWilietkreugh.) The formal ordinance reflecting this proposal is attached as Exhibit D.
Councilor Graham's suggested changes include the following:
• Right of way signs would also be allowed on Fridays.
• On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, signs could be placed as early as 8 a.m. (The preceding
proposal allows signs no earlier than 10 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday).
• The restriction on signs at corners would be deleted.
• Signs could be up to 30 inches tall (rather than 24 inches).
For traffic safety reasons, the City's Zoning Code prohibits signs within the "vision clearance
triangle" at intersections if the sign is more than 30 inches above the height of the centerline of
Council Report
October 9, 2001
Ord. No. 2310 Right -of -Way Signs
Page 3
the adjacent pavement. Since Councilor Graham's proposal allows signs at corners, and
increases the allowed height of signs to 30 inches (the sidewalk may be higher than the centerline
of the pavement), a cross-reference to the vision -clearance ordinance has been added.
Under the vision -clearance ordinance, signs more than 30 inches above the pavement height
(rather than the sidewalk height) must be at least 60 feet away from the corner at uncontrolled
intersections. At controlled intersections such signs may be closer, if the distance is based upon
a traffic study meeting certain criteria. Since realtors are unlikely to commission a traffic study
simply to place a sign, the 60 -foot rule will need to be observed for taller signs.
CONCLUSION
After receiving public testimony and deliberating, the Council has the following options:
1. Adopt proposed Ordinance No. 2310 allowing right-of-way signs (Exhibit B);
2. Adopt Councilor Graham's proposed version of Ordinance No. 2310 (Exhibit D);
3. Direct staff to make additional changes to the proposed ordinance and return it to the
Council for consideration; or
4. Decline to change the sign code at this time.
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2310
PER DISCUSSION AT 10-2-01 INFORMATION SESSION
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;
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 coiner 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. 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
five feet in width;
Exhibit A — Ord 2310
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT
rd I
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
property including without limitation utility or light poles, parking meters, the ground or the
pavement;
The sign is not placed in parking spaces, pedestrian pathways, or bicycle
paths.
M A0rd\12310-Sign-ROW-Ex-B.doc
Exhibit A — Ord 2310
Page 2of2 ����
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 strikeout and adding
the new text shown in redline and underline.
Section 1. Section 47.03.030 is hereby amended to read as follows
47.03.030 Area of Signs.
Sign area includes the area within a perimeter enclosing the limits of lettering, writing,
representation, emblem, figure, character and lighted surface, but excluding essential sign
structure, foundations or supports. Except as provided in LOC 47.08.300 (B)(3)(d), F,for a
multiple -face (more than two sided) sign, the sign area shall be the total of all faces. If the sign
consists of more than one section or module, all areas will be totaled. For a double-faced sign in
a single cabinet, the allowed area shall be the dimension of the cabinet, not the total of the area
of message. See TABLES 47-1 and 47-2.
(Ord. No. 1921, Sec. 7; 07-02-85. Ord. No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Section 2 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.
Awning. 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
Ordinance No. 2310 w E X H I B I T
Page 1 of 7
�t
semirigid framework for maintaining its form.
Banners. Nonrigid material secured or mounted so as to allow movement caused by the
wind.
Blade Sign. 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 multi -
building complex.
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 Standing 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
incidental)} 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
pef:Fnanew4y 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
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 2 of 7 z j
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.
Sign Band. A continuous painted, attached or structurally internal linear area for the
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 Sign. 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 3. 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
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 3 of 7 23
77
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 iravc].
6. Except as provided, in LOC 47.08.300(B)(3). 4no temporary QA
, Cr sign, xeept-€e
_h I ha n e,
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 cpuld 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
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 c ' ]ear 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 4. Section 47.08.300 is hereby 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. Excel)( as provided by this section,Nno 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, tom, 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
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 4 of 7
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.
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.
Ordinance No, 2310
Page 5 of 7 235
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
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 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.,
Oil 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 30 inches;
f. The sign is entirely outside of the area of a right-of-way.corner that is between the
CLIrb and the lines created by extending the property lines to the curb face. See TABLE 47-3.
g. Where no curb exists, the sim must be placed outside the roadway at least five feet
from the edge of the roadway.
h. The sign does not obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone of at least five feet in
width;
i. The sign does not obstruct pedestrian and wheelchair access from the sidewalk to ally
of the following:
(l) transit stop areas;
(2) designated disabled parking spaces; or
(3) building exits including fire escapes.
J. 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 round or the pavement
k. The sign is not placed in parking spaces, pedestrian pathways, or bicycle paths.
(Ord. No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. 11' any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 6 of 7
236
head by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on day of 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
JPROVED AS TO FGR�:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
MA0rd\2310-Sign-ROW-100901.doe
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 7 of 7 2
TABLE 47-3
(LOC 47.08.300)
n
G
r
Property Line ^=
1
t
t Portable Signs
not allowed in
this area 1
Curb Line 1
Street
23�'�
47.08.300
B.
EXHIBIT C
ORDINANCE NO. 2310
COUNCILOR GRAHAM'S PROPOSAL
(Showing Changes from 10-2-01 Information Session Version)
temporary Signs Exempt From Permit and Fee
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., and on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of ten (10) eight (8) 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;
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;
The sign, including the support structure, is no taller than -24 30 inches;
f The sign :.. _...i' -l. ,.. ..i. _ ..f the ..... of ...: ..h. of ..ay „ ,,,....e. that :.
44-43-
g f. 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 g. Where no curb exists, the sign must be placed outside the roadway at least
five feet from the edge of the roadway.
i h. The sign does not obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone of at least
five feet in width;
Exhibit C - Ordinance 2310
Page 1 of 2
7 r�
EXHIBIT
C_
j i. 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- j. 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;
I k. The sign is not placed in parking spaces, pedestrian pathways, or bicycle
paths.
Cross -Reference Note: See restrictions on siuns taller than 30" above the level of the
centerline of adiacent pavement within the "vision clearance triangle" at intersections —
LOC 48.20.530
N1 \Ord\2310-Sign-ROW-Ex-C-Graham.doc
Exhibit C - Ordinance 2310
Page 2 of 2
240
ORDINANCE No. 2310
(Councilor Graham's Proposal)
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 sti+lEeaut• and adding
the new text shown in redline and underline.
Section 1. Section 47.03.030 is hereby amended to read as follows
47.03.030 Area of Signs.
Sign area includes the area within a perimeter enclosing the limits of lettering, writing,
representation, emblem, figure, character and lighted surface, but excluding essential sign
structure, foundations or supports. Except as provided in LOC 47.08.300 (13)(3)(d), or a
multiple -face (more than two sided) sign, the sign area shall be the total of all faces. If the sign
consists of more than one section or module, all areas will be totaled. For a double-faced sign in
a single cabinet, the allowed area shall be the dimension of the cabinet, not the total of the area
of message. See TABLES 47-1 and 47-2.
(Ord. No. 1921, Sec. 7; 07-02-85. Oro, No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Section 2. 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 C).
Awning. 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
Ordinance No. 2310
Page I of 7
EXHIBIT
� "I
lighted letters), neon lighted letters, and individual letters on awnings and canopies.
Balloon Sims. 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 Sign. A sign hung from a canopy or awning perpendicular to the direction of
pedestrian movement.
Canol2y. 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 multi -
building complex.
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 Standing 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
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 2 of 7
peHmanenfiy 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 -G, 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.
Sign Band. A continuous painted, attached or structurally internal linear area for the
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 Sign. 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 3. 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.
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 3of7 ties
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. Except as provided in LOC 47.08.300(B)Q),NUo temporary sign, c�the r thanexeept er
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 he 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
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 4. Section 47.08.300 is hereby 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,Nno 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
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 4 of 7
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.
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 it' 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 signor 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:
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 5of7 245
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 sittiultaneously.
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
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 ,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.,
and on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays - between the hours of eight (8) 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 includingthe he support structure is no taller than 30 inches;
f The sign is entirely outside thb 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;
g Where no curb exists the sign must be placed outside the roadway at least five feet
from the edge of the roadway.
h. The sign does not obstruct a continuous through pedestrian zone of at least five feet in
width;
i 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.
J The sin is not attached or anchored in any to trees or to public property
including without limitation utility or light poles, parking_ meters the ground or the pavement,
k The sign is not placed in parking spaces pedestrian pathways or bicycle paths.
(Cross -Reference Note: See restrictions on signs taller than 30" above the level of the
centerline of adjacent pavement within the "vision clearance triangle" at intersections - LOC
48.20.530.1
(Ord. No. 2085, Enacted, 01/04/94)
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 6 of 7 21 °'
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. 11' any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on day of 12001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
A'1"PEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO -FTM:
avid D. Powell, City Attorney
M A0rd\2310-Sign-Graham-10090 Ldoc
Ordinance No. 2310
Page 7 of 7
247
8.1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/16/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: An Ordinance to Vacate Portions of Tenth Street (Ordinance 2304)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to enact Ordinance 2304.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
NIA
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
FUNDING SOURCE
ATTACHMENTS:
• Schoening Council
Report dated 10/2/01
with attachments
• Ordinance 2304
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.: 2:304
Previous Council
consideration:
8/7/01 (Resolution of Intent)
9/4/01 (Public hearing)
CITY ENGINEER CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY MA AGER
DIRECTOR � d 6/
—eA
----- - ---
Date Date Date
H ROSS_-(%Sl'Rlai'IIVACA'1'1;.110th(413erwick\agenda L ord 2304.doc
24+i
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO:
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM:
Mark Schoening, City Engineer
PREPARED BY:
Russell Chevrette, Engineering Tech III
SUBJECT:
Ordinance 2304;Vacation of Surplus Right of Way along Tenth Street between
Evergreen Street and Berwick Road
DATE:
October 2, 2001
Action Requested
The City Council is asked to enact Ordinance 2034.
Backi,round
On September 4, 2001, the Council held a public hearing on a draft ordinance to vacate surplus right of
way on Tenth Street between Evergreen Road and Berwick Road. The Council gave a conceptual
approval and directed staff to finalize the legal description of the vacated right of way and return a final
ordinance to the Council for enactment.
Discussion
In the previous council report, staff pointed out that enough right of way should be reserved to allow for
some minor street widening or pedestrian improvements if they are ever deemed necessary. The final
ordinance preserves about 8 feet of right of way on the west side of Tenth Street (measured from the
existing edge of pavement) and about 10 feet on the east side. 'rile narrowest section of reserved right of
way is about 45 feel, which is consistent with the right of way width fOUnd on most local streets in newer
development. The ordinance reserves a utility easement on the portions of right of way that will be
vacated. The attached map displays the square footage of each abutting lot and the area it will gain when
the abutting right of way is vacated.
Recommendation: Move to enact Ordinance 2304.
Attachments:
Exhibit A, Vicinity map
Ordinance 2304
I I Itt Kti ('til w I i \ 1c':\ I 1' I niIi a Iici �\ wk\ordinance reportIdtx
rt'
1
ITL 6200
1 205 BERWICK
1
I
1
I
I
I
197
AREA PREVIOUSLY �VACATED �g
J.—AREA PREVIOUSLY VACATEOJI
60
I I
I ,
' I
I I
I I 202 BERWICK
—� TENTH
STREET,
/O0
R-10
ZONL
38257 sq If
r�
TL 6300 iEXISTING R—O—W_
216 10TH STREET .•3w
CP,RIOPOSED198
I \59
EXISTING
PAVLMINI�
I
196 BERWICK
EXISTING
PAVEMENT
EVERGREEN ROAD
u}'I TL 10000
243 IOTH STREET
6454 sq t,Y
PROPOSED
- VACATION
—7.5
t ;Yv ZONE
3i
EXISTING R—O—W SCALE: 1 " = 50'
40• sq: IF - — —
PROPOSED
VACATION
R-7.5
ZONE
11568 sq fl
TL 10100
20\1 10TH STREET
BER --
WICK ROAD
ORDINANCE NO. 2304
A SPECIAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE
OSWEGO VACATING PORTIONS OF TENTH STREET BETWEEN EVERGREEN
ROAD AND BERWICK ROAD
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1: The City Council determines that:
a. The City Council initiated the vacation of portions of Tenth Street between Evergreen
Road and Berwick Road by adoption of Resolution 01-63.
b. Notice required by law was given for the public hearing held September 4, 2001 for the
purpose of considering the proposed vacation.
C. A majority of the affected owners as defined by statute did not object in writing to the
proposed vacation.
d. Affected owners have executed an agreement to control the reversionary interest in the
vacated right of way.
e. The abutting properties will not suffer any economic damage by the proposed vacation.
Section 2. The portions of the streets generally described in Section 1 of this ordinance are
more specifically described on the attached Exhibit A.
Section 3. The public interest in the right of way described in Section 2 is hereby vacated,
except as described in Section 4 of this ordinance.
Section 4. The City of Lake Oswego reserves a utility easement in the subject rights of way
for the benefit of public and private utility providers.
Section 5. The City Recorder shall file with the Clackamas County Clerk, Assessor and
Surveyor certified copies of this ordinance.
Section 6. The City Recorder shall cause the agreement referred to in Section I of this
ordinance to be recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk.
Read for the first time by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego held on the 16`x' day of October, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Ordinance 2304, Page 1 of 2
__ 255
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Date of Sigmature
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney
STATE OF OREGON)
Clackamas County )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2001
by Judie Hammerstad, Mayor, and Robyn Christie, City Recorder, for the City of Lake Oswego.
Notary Public, my commission expires
Ordinance 2304, Page 2 of 2
'?5f)
EXHIBIT "A"
On the West side of Tenth Street:
A tract of land located in the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of
the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon;
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 198, plat of Forest Hills #4 (Plat #560);
thence South 12° 50' 02" West, 29.58 feet;
thence North 82° 00' 56" East, 93.61 feet;
thence along an arc to the left of a 178.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 73° 14' 56';
Chord Bearing = North 45° 23' 28" East; Chord Distance = 212.38 feet), a length
of 227.56 feet;
thence North 81 ° 14' West, 8.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 198;
thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly line of said Lot 198,
303.31 feet to the point of beginning, and.
On the East side of Tenth Street:
A tract of land located in the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of
the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon;
Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 1, plat of Lake Bay Homes (Plat
#626);
thence North 74° 32' 55" West, 29.47 feet;
thence along an arc to the left of a 15.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 861 25' 53";
Chord Bearing = South 62° 14' 08" West; Chord Distance = 20.54 feet), a length
of 22.63 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
thence along an are to the right of a 226.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 30° 32' 53";
Chord Bearing = South 34° 17' 38" West; Chord Distance = 119.07 feet), a length
of 120.50 feet;
thence South 39° 33' 36" West, 68.28 feet;
thence along an arc to the left of a 55.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 99° 09' 06';
Chord Bearing = South 10° 01' 15" East; Chord Distance = 83.75 feet), a length of
25.
THIS DOCUMENT
IIAS BE"F-4N RI "ITHOTOGRAPHED
TO ASSURI" t,EGIB11.-J.`-t'Y
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Date of Signature
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney
STATE OF OREGON)
Clackamas County )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2001
by Judie Hammerstad, Mayor, and Robyn Christie, City Recorder, for the City of Lake Oswego.
Notary Public; my commission expires
Ordinance 2304, Page 2 of 2
25()
EXHIBIT "A"
On the West side of Tenth Street:
A tract of land located in the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of
the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon;
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 198, plat of Forest Hills #4 (Plat #560);
thence South 12° 50' 02" West, 29.58 feet;
thence North 82° 00' 56" East, 93.61 feet;
thence along an are to the left of a 178.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 73° 14' 56";
Chord Bearing = North 45° 23' 28" East; Chord Distance = 212.38 feet), a length
of 227.56 feet;
thence North 81 ° 14' West, 8.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 198;
thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly line of said Lot 198,
303.31 feet to the point of beginning, and .
On the East side of Tenth Street:
A tract of land located in the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of
the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon;
Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 1, plat of Lake Bay Homes (Plat
#626);
thence North 74° 32' 55" West, 29.47 feet;
thence along an arc to the left of a 15.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 86° 25' 53";
Chord Bearing = South 62° 14' 08" West; Chord Distance = 20.54 feet), a length
of 22.63 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
thence along an arc to the right of a 226.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 30° 32' 53";
Chord Bearing = South 34° 17' 38" West; Chord Distance = 119.07 feet), a length
of 120.50 feet;
thence South 39° 33' 36" West, 68.28 feet;
thence along an arc to the left of a 55.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 99° 09' 06";
Chord Bearing = South 10° 01' 15" East; Chord Distance = 83.75 feet), a length of
2 5'1
95.18 feet to a point of compound can ature on the southwest linr of I .ot 40, said
plat of Lake Bay Homes;
thence along said southwest line of Lot 40 on an arc to the right of a 3 7. 10 foot
radius curve (Delta = 123° 14'; Chord Bearing = North 02° 01' 00" East; Chord
Distance = 65.28 feet), a length of 79.81 feet to a point of reverse curvature on the
northwest line of said Lot 40, plat of Lake Bay Homes;
thence along said northwest line of Lot 40 and Lot 1, plat of Lake Bay Homes on
an arc to the left of a 270.00 foot radius curve (Delta = 480 10' 25"; Chord Bearing
= North 39° 32' 18" East; Chord Distance = 220.38 feet), a length of 227.01 feet to
the point of beginning.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
10.1.1
io/ 16/ot
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2001
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION No. 01-77. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ACCEPTING A FEMA GRANT FOR $258,750 TO PUT FIRE
SPRINKLERS IN ADULT FOSTER HOMES.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution No. 01-77. A Resolution of the City of Lake Oswego to accept a
FEMA grant for $258,750 to put fire sprinklers in adult foster homes.
EST. FISCAL
ATTACHMENTS:
NOTICED (Date):
IMPACT:
• Schmitz memo dated
$258,750 FEMA
October 11, 2001
-
$28,750 City
• Council Report dated
Resolution no.: 111
October 8, 2001.
STAFF COST: $ NA .
• Resolution No. 0 1 -77
Findings no.: NIA
BUDGETED:
0 Grant Award Letter
Y N X
Previous Council
consideration: NO
FUNDING SOURCE:
• FEMA
• Public Safety Capital
Fund
DEPT. DIRECTOR
Signoff/date
Ord\rptcov00.doc
ASST. CITY MANAGER
Signoff/date
%k)-111— ___
CITY a AGER
Signoff/date ii C t a/
25"
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
SUBJECT: FEMA Grant
DATE: 11 October 2001
MEMORANDUM
Council is asked to consider acceptance of a grant from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in response to an application that the City's
Department of Fire, Rescue and Life Safety submitted for the installation of
sprinklers in adult foster homes as well as Special Residences and Homes for
Children with Special Needs.
The Fire Department, particularly Fire Chief Dan Semrad and Fire Marshal
Phil Sample, was one of two specifically singled out for its innovative fire
prevention application when FEMA made its announcement of grant awards on
24 September.
The City needs to contribute 10%, or $28,750, towards the grant. Resolution
01-77 proposes the utilization of monies in the Public Safety Capital Equipment
Fund. The Finance Department will examine the activity within that fund when
the mid -year budget text is prepared in December. If funding is needed for this
program beyond that appropriated of FY 2001-02, a line item will be included in
the mid -year budget. The fund has an estimated ending fund balance of
$482,122.
Why not use the Water Fund? We're prohibited by the Charter, Section 50,
Revenue from Utilities, which reads, in part, "Revenue received... shall be used
solely for the operation of such utility, retirement of any debt of the utility, and
for its purchase, construction or expansion."
26
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Dan Semrad, Fire Chief Qa, ^' 5
PREPARED BY: Phil Sample, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 01-77 — Accept Federal Emergency Management
Grant to place residential fire sprinklers in homes for elderly,
children and disabled residents in need of assistance.
DATE: October 8, 2001
ACTION
The action before the City Council is consideration of approval of Resolution No. 01-77.
This resolution accepts a Federal Emergency Management grant for $258,750 anti
requires a 10% City match of $28,750. The money would make possible a City program
to put fire sprinklers in the homes of residents most vulnerable to and least protected
from fire.
BACKGROUND
Fire sprinkler systems virtually eliminate uncontrolled fires and fire deaths in buildings.
In a conscientious effort to prioritize Lake Oswego fire prevention programs, the targets
are easy to identify. Fire death victims in our community have always been elderly,
young, or disabled. In an effort to wipe out the fire risk to the most vulnerable, the city's
Fire Sprinkler Grant
City Council Report
Page One of Five
26:s
BACKGROUND (cont.)
fire prevention efforts are promoting the use of fire sprinkler systems in apartments, in all
schools, adult foster care homes, special care residents and foster care homes for children.
With the City Council's recent support of fire sprinklers in all public schools, the Federal
Emergency Management Agencies' announcement of grant money available for
innovative fire prevention programs seemed like the right time to try to add protection for
our most vulnerable seniors.
The grant program was a competitive process based on the long-term impact of the
program and protection offered for United States Fire Administration high-risk
populations (i.e., children under fourteen years of age, seniors over sixty-five and
firefighters).
With sprinklers in the schools AND sprinklers in adult and juvenile foster homes, Lake
Oswego will have taken a huge step in fire protection, placing it head and shoulders
above most communities.
Lake Oswego has a fair record. The last fire deaths in Lake Oswego were two seniors
living in an adult foster care home in 1989. While that is a fair record, no fire deaths are
acceptable in light of the fact that we have affordable technology to prevent them. This
program will provide that technology to those most likely to be trapped in a fire and is a
proactive approach to public safety.
Fire Sprinkler Grant
City Council Report
Page Two of Five
2611
Fire Protection in Adult Foster Homes
Adult Foster Homes are ordinary residential homes that take up to five people who are
elderly, or have physical disability, mental disability, or developmental disability.
Federal law prohibits the requirement of fire sprinkler systems being placed in adult
foster homes, even with the vulnerability of the residents. It is common to have only one
staff member in the middle of the night to offer any assistance for evacuation. Having
experienced two fire deaths in one of these homes, staff believes that the installation of
residential sprinkler systems would almost guarantee that this group never has to
experience the horrors of limited mobility with a fire racing down the hall.
HOW THE PROGRAM WOULD WORK
The budget in the grant proposal includes money to contract with a coordinator to assist
the fire department in overseeing the program. Further funds are available to offset city
administrative cost for fire department oversight, financial and legal services.
There are currently 18 adult foster homes registered in the areas served by the city's fire
department. There are several other homes listed as Special Residences and operate
similarly to adult foster homes. There are also several homes serving children with
special needs that are eligible for this program.
Applications to have a residential fire sprinkler system installed at no charge to the
applicants would be handed out to the homes listed above. Priority will be given first to
adult foster homes in the city, next to adult foster homes in the unincorporated areas
served by the City's fire department, next to Special Residences, and then to homes for
special needs kids.
Fire Sprinkler Grant
City Council Report
Page Three of Five
2611
HOW THE PROGRAM WOULD WORD (cont.)
The applications will be prioritized with vulnerability to fire being the primary
consideration. A construction bid process will be initiated that will have several
alternates allowing the installation of fire sprinklers in as many residents as allowed by
construction funds.
Part of the program will include advertisement and promotion of the advantages of fire
sprinklers systems in all residential homes.
POTENTIAL COUNCIL ISSUES
This program was not budgeted for in city funds. The decision to offer $100 million
dollars in grant funds for "Assistance to Firefighters" was a last minute decision by the
federal government that staff did not anticipate. The 90% match by FEMA for a program
that almost eliminates the risk of fire to some of our most vulnerable seniors and children
is a remarkable opportunity.
The grant provides for more dollars to compensate for city administration of the program
than required for the city's matching 10%. While this does not automatically eliminate
the city's match, it should help offset the cost to the city.
The program is for protection from fire for people in adult foster homes, juvenile foster
homes, special residences, and treatment homes. There are children taken in by families,
elderly who are too much for families to care for or do not have families, and children in
treatment homes (some who may have fire setting behaviors). In all cases these are
people who live in group situations and are at risk from others. Staff proposes that it is
an appropriate government role to step in and protect people from others when they are
unable to do so themselves.
Fire Sprinkler Grant
City Council Report
Page Four of Five
266
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve staffs recommendation to approve Resolution No.01-77 to
accept $258, 750 towards fire sprinklers in special care homes.
The Council may approve and amend Resolution No. 01-77.
The Council may choose not approve Resolution No. 01-77.
CONCLUSION
In group housing a person can do everything right and still they are at the mercy of their
neighbors. This situation is compounded for seniors and others with limited mobility.
Automatic fire sprinkler systems would nearly eliminate the potential for loss of life,
injury, and displacement caused by fires in group housing.
This program supports previous Council action that now requires fire sprinklers in newly
constructed apartments and Council action to get fire sprinklers in public schools. With
the addition of fire sprinklers in group homes for seniors and children, Lake Oswego will
be a leader in fire safety.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the approval of this Resolution.
EXHIBITS
1. Grant Award Letter
2. Agreement Articles — Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program
Fire Sprinkler Grant
City Council Report
Page Five of Five
RESOLUTION 01-77
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
ACCEPTING A FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
GRANT TO ASSIST IN THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO PROVIDE SPRINKLERS TO
FOSTER CARE FACILITIES
WHEREAS, there are 18 foster care facilities, as well as Special Residences and Homes
for Children with Special Needs, within the area served by the City of Lake Oswego's
Department of Fire, Rescue & Life Safety; and
WHEREAS, the City made application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) for a grant; and
WHEREAS, the City has been notified that it will receive approximately $258,750 for the
stated purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to make a 10% match of $28,750; and
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Capital Fund is the source for the City's match;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego does authorize:
1. The acceptance of the grant from FEMA in the amount of approximately $258,750
for the purpose of providing sprinklers to foster care facilities that currently do
not have sprinklers;
2. The City's 10% match be derived from the City's Public Safety Capital Fund with
an adjustment to that budget at mid -year.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 16th day of October 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie I iammerstad, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, Ci ty Recorder
APPROVED AS TQC RM:
David Powell, City Attorney
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
SEN 2 4 2001
Phil Sample, Fire Marshall
City of Lake Oswego Fire, Rescue and Life Safety
Post Office Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Re: Grant No. EMW-2001-FG-06874
Dear Mr. Sample:
Congratulations, your grant application submitted under FEMA's Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program for a fire prevention program has been approved. The approved project costs
amount to $287,500. Ninety percent (or $258,750) of the approved amount is the Federal
share and 10 percent (or $28,750) is your share of the costs.
Enclosed with this award letter, you will find FEMA's grant agreement articles. Please
make sure you read and understand the articles as they outline the terms and conditions
related with your grant award. Maintain a copy of these documents for your official files.
You establish acceptance of these grant agreement articles when you expend any of the
grant funds available to you.
Grant payments under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program are made on a
reimbursable or an immediate -needs basis. When you need a draw from your grant funds,
fill out the attached Request for Advance or Reimbursement (Standard Form 270) and send
it to us at the address listed below. In order to speed up the payment process, you also have
the option of sending the request via fax at 202-646-3846. We will initiate the payment with
the faxed copy but you must also send us the original, signed copy to its at the address
provided below. Each request for payment must be made by using this form, i.e., SF -270.
Send all grant payment documents to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Financial & Acquisition Management Division
Grants Management Branch
500 C Street, SW, Room 350
Washington, DC 20472
Attw Sylvia A. Carroll
'., t 11
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Tom I larrington at
202-646-3386.
Sincerely,
f Patnc�a A. Engles
Senior Procurement Executive
Administration and Resource
Planning Directorate
Enclosures:
FEMA Form 76-10A
Agreement Articles
Checklist
Standard Form 270
Standard Form 1199A, if applicable
2 271