The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - 1994-11-01 PM LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS 11/1/94 STUDY SESSION & REGULAR J DRAFT LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA FOLLOW-UP November 1,1994 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:10 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Mayor Schlenker, Anderson, Chrisman, Klamrner, Holstein Councilor Puskas excused. III. STUDY SESSION 5;30-6:45 P.M, A. ID Agenda Review. B. Li Comprehensive Plan Review. IV. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d), Labor I- ADJOURNMENT 7:00 p.nm.,Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT AGENDA A. REPORTS 1. Reclassifying employment position. 1 is/ ACTION: Approve reclassification. FOLLOW-UP: Personnel, Finance - Note reclassification Building - Proceed with hire 2. City of Sandy Outfall Strategy 5 V ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter taking no position Council Agenda Follow-Up Page 1 of 5 November 1, 1994 , II .1 I r DRAFT 'FOLLOW-UP: City Mar. - Prepare letter for Mayor 3. Completion of election waiver requirements 13 L.- for street widenings on 65th Avenue and Greentree Road. ACTION: Accept report. FOLLOW-UP: Pub. Wks. - Proceed with construction. I 4. EMS Arbitration contract amendment. 17' ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendment. FOLLOW-UP: HR - Execution of contract amendment Finance - Note changes B. RESOLUTIONS Resolution 94-58,A resolution of the City Council 21 of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the University of Oregon to conduct land use study for the North Stafford Area ACTION: Adopt resolution. FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Execution of resolution and agreement, Planning - Execution of agree. by State - Proceed with study C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 26, 1994, study session 35 (ACTION: PULLED FROM CONSENT ANI) CONTINUED I FOLLOW-UP: Recorder Revise and schedule for 11/15 2. September 27, 1994, special meeting 43 3. October 10, 1994, study session 61 4. October 13, 1994, special joint meeting 65 Metro 2040 Plan. Council Agenda Follow-Up Page 2 of 5 November 1, 1994 III I I I ■ DRAFT 5. October 4, 1994, regular meeting 69 ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. IACTION: ALL APPROVED, EXCEPT 9/26/94 FOLLOW-UP: Recorder Execution & distribution. EN1)CONSENT AGENDA'\ �� ,. .�.� \ IV. PRESENTATIONS/RECOGNITION Lake Oswego, Partners for Livable Communities- One of America's Most Livable Communities, 1994- Metro, Greater Portland, Oregon. IFOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Place in Council Workroom V. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA VI. CITIZEN COMMENT - None VII. PUBLIC HEARING A. Supplemental Budget for fiscal year 1994-1995 87 V . 94-59, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego adopting a supplemental budget resolution for fiscal year commencing July 1, 1994, approving resources and making appropriations. ACTION: APPROVED FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Execution of resolution Finance - Make changes B. AP 94-03, three appeals an approval by the Planning 95 Commission of an application for elderly housing application —ODPS 1-90/PD 2-92/SD 6-92 by the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, Mt. Park Homeowners Association, and Pfeifer Farm Homeowners Association. ACTION: MOTION TO CONTINUE TO 11/10 AT 6:00 P.M. FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Schedule for 11/10 (NOTE: The time was changed to 7:00 p.m.) - - Begin hearing with testimony by the applicant, Glenn Gregg Council Agenda Follow-Up Page 3 of 5 November 1, 1994 p---------------w. . D RAFT ROM THE COUNCIL ouncilors.ts on intergovernmental activities. tments to the Library Advisory Board and l Resources Advisory Board. APPOINTED-UP: CMU Sec. Notify appointees and staff. IX. REPORTS Clarification of West Bay traffic changes 97 ACTION:TO REOPEN HEARING FOR WEST RAY/SOU'I'I I SI LORE INTERSECTION CLARIFICATION ONLY -- TURNING MOVEMENTS FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Schedule hearing - Notify participants of data Pub. Wks. - Staff to provide detailed maps for all future NTARR hearings X. RESOLUTIONS 94-60, updating Resolution 94-53, the Master Fee 103 and Charge Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, amending or deleting various fees and charges of the City ACTION:ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Execution of resolution Finance - Complete changes to master fee schedule and distribute XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. City Manager 1 —City of Tigard meeting regarding water —Maintenance Services regarding storm cleanup FOLLOW-UP: City Mgr. • Send letter thanking maintenance employees Council Agenda Follow-Up Page 4 of 5 November 1, 1994 • • DRAFT B. City Attorney Correction to Order AP 94-03-1087A ACTION: CORRECTED ORDER APPROVED FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Execution & distribution of order OTHER ACTION: ACTION: MOTION ADOPTED TO AUTHORIZE'I'I IE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH ANY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATIONS WHICH SETTLE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 7 FOLLOW-UP: Recorder - Execution of agreements • XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION Moved before regular agenda XIII. ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda Follow-Up Page 5 of 5 November 1, 1994 • ,,'7°� LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL 4:71/ , REGULAR MEETING AGENDA L November 1, 1994 5:30 p.m. - 6:45 p.m., City Councilors Study Session Alice L. Schlenker,Mayor 7.00 p.m., Regular Meeting Mike Anderson Heather Chrism: Bill Holstein City Council Chambers, First Floor, City Hall Bill Klanimer 380 A Avenue _Mary Puskas This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact the City Recorder, 635-0236, 48 hours prior to the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. STUDY SESSION 5:30-6:45 P.M. A. (U Agenda Review. B. la Comprehensive Plan Review. a. ADJOURNMENT 7:00 p.m., Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL City Council Agenda Page 1 of 6 November 1, 1994 III. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. The City Council makes one motion covering all items included. An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda. A. REPORTS 1. Reclassifying employment position 1 ACTION: Approve reclassification. 2. City of Sandy Outfall Strategy. 5 ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter taking no position. 3. Completion of election waiver requirements 13 for street widenings o.. 65th Avenue and Greentree Road. ACTION: Accept report. 4. EMS Arbitration contract amendment 17 ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendment. B. RESOLUTIONS Resolution 94-58,A resolution of the City Council 21 of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the University of Oregon to conduct land use study for the North Stafford Area ACTION: Adopt resolution. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Council policy is that a 'yes"vote on the consent agenda for minutes indicates either approval if the City Councilor was present;or, if the City Councilor was excused from the meeting, an abstention. 1. September 26, 1994, study session 35 ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. City Council Agenda Page 2 of 6 November 1, 1994 2. September 27, 1994, special meeting 43 ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. 3. October 10, 1994, study session 61 ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. 4. October 13, 1994, special joint meeting 65 Metro 2040 Plan. ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. 5. October 4, 1994, regular meeting 69 ACTION: Adopt minutes as written. MOTION ON CONSENT AGENDA ROLL CALL VOTE END CONSENT AGENDA IV. PRESENTATIONS/RECOGNITION Lake Oswego,Partners for Livable Communities - One of America's Most Livable Communities, 1994 - Metro, Greater Portland, Oregon. V. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA VI. CITIZEN COMMENT The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda. A time limit of five minutes per citizen shall apply. VII. PUBLIC HEARING A. Supplemental Budget for fiscal year 1994-1995 87 94-59, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego adopting a supplemental budget resolution for fiscal year commencing July 1, 1994, approving resources and making appropriations. PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE *A timer will be used. It will be set to sound one minute before time limits are up. STAFF REPORT City Council Agenda Page 3 of 6 November 1, 1994 PUBLIC TESTIMONY • 1. Those in favor 10 Minutes for a representative of a group or organization 5 Minutes for other persons 2. Those opposed. 10 Minutes for a representative of a group • or organization. 5 Minutes for other persons 3. Those neither in favor nor opposed 10 Minutes for a representative of a group or organization. • 5 Minutes for other persons • • CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ •••• COUNCIL OUESTIONS OF STAFF COUNCIL MOTION COUNCIL DISCUSSION ROLL CALL VOTE B. AP 94-03, three appeals an approval by the Planning 95 Commission of an application for elderly housing application -- ODPS 1-90/PD 2-92/SD 6-92 by the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association,Mt. Park Homeowners Association, and Pfeifer Farm Homeowners Association. The appeals require a quasi-judicial hearing to be conducted according to the procedures set forth in LOC 49.610-49.625, and are confined to the record established before the Planning Commission. The Council needs only to consider those matters specifically raised in the Notices of Appeal (LOC 49.626(7). Evidence not contained in the record made before the Planning Commission may not be presented in the hearing. Only those persons who submitted oral or written testimony to the Planning Commission are eligible to testify before the City Council on the appeal. PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE NOTE: If the time reaches 10:00 p.m., the hearing will be continued to a date certain. STAFF REPORT City Council Agenda Page 4 of 6 November 1, 1994 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Time Limits A timer will be used. It will be set to sound one minute before your time limits arc up. Quasi-Judicial Bearing The purpose of time limits on testimony is to provide all interested persons with an adequate opportunity to present and respond to testimony while at the same time ensuring that the hearing can be conducted in an efficient and expeditious manner. The following time limits on testimony shall be observed during an appeal hearing conducted by the Council,subject to the right of the Mayor, with Council consent, to amend or waive the time limits: 1. Those in favor. 15 minutes for the appellant's presentation. to minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, government or government agency,or other incorporated public interest organization. 5 minutes for other persons. 2. Those opposed. 15 minutes for the applicant's presentation, if the applicant is not the appellant. 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, government or government agency,or other incorporated public interest organization. 5 minutes for other persons. 3. Rebuttal. 5 minutes for rebuttal. CLOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING • COUNCIL OUESTIONS OF STAFF COUNCIL MOTION COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ROLL CALL VOTE VIII. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL This agenda item provides an opportunity for Councilors to bring any item before the Council for consideration. Each Councilor will be given five minutes for their use. A. City Councilors. B. Reports on intergovernmental activities. C. Appointments to the Library Advisory Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board. City Council Agenda Page 5 of 6 November 1, 1994 IX. REPORTS Clarification of West Bay traffic changes 97 X. RESOLUTIONS 94-60, updating Resolution 94-53, the Master Fee 103 and Charge Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, amending or deleting various fees and charges of the City MOTION DISCUSSION ROLL CALL VOTE XL REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. City Manager B. City Attorney XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION XIII. ADJOURNMENT For a recap of actions from the Council meeting, call HELLO-LO Wednesday morning after 9:30 a.m., 635-1952 k:\krisl i\agendas\council\11-1-94 City Council Agenda Page 6 of 6 November 1, 1994 III - A - 1 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Reclassifying Employment Positions ISSUE: Should the City Council approve a new position classification and pay range for a Permit Center Manager? OPTIONS: 1. Approve salary range. 2. Do not approve salary range. 3. Continue consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 1. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Human Resources FISCAL IMPACT: $ None NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): October 18, 1994 BUDGETED? ACCOUNT# ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation • Memos from Robert Kincaid and Tom Coffee fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present? N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X 1 M.\COt;NitL\AGkNIIACK.lxi r MEMORANDUM To: Douglas J. Schmitz,City Manager From: Robert A. Kincaid,Assistant City Manager Subject: Establishment of New Position Classification and Pay Range Date: October 11, 1994 Action Approve a new position classification and pay range for a Permit Center Manager. Background The City's Charter requires that pay ranges be establishment by the City Council. Typically, this is done when labor agreements are ratified by the City Council in the case of unionized position classification or when the City Council adopts management salary ranges. Periodically, there is a need to establish new position classifications during the course of the year when the establishment of the position classification does not coincide with these other events. This is the case with the position of Permit Center Manager. The attached memorandum from Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager,outlines the reasons for the new classification. I have reviewed the proposed classification and salary range for market considerations and internal relationships with other similar position classifications. The salary range as proposed would be consist with other positions in the City. The salary range would be structure as follows: Position Title Minimum Maximum Permit Center Manager 2878 3785 • Recommendation Staff recommendation adoption of the proposed position classification and salary range. 3 MEMORANDUM October 11, 1994 TO: Bob Kincaid, Assistant City Manager FROM: Torn Coffee, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Request for Salary Classification for Permit Center Manager Position Background This request is prompted by a decision to combine the duties of the CIP Manager and the Building Official and restructure the Building Division as outlined below. 1.The CIP Director position will be expanded to include the general management and Building Code interpretation duties of the Building Official. Ron Bespflug has held the CIP Manager position on an interim basis for the past six months. He has demonstrated that he can also provide general overall management of the Building Division at the same time. There is a need however, for a supervisory position in the Division to manage the daily operations if Ron is to continue to be an effective CIP Director. 2. The creation of a Permit Center Manager position is needed primarily to perform the daily coordination and supervisory functions for the Building Division. This position would also be responsible for developing more effective procedures for the provision of services related to plan review, field inspections and related activities. 3. The current vacant plans examiner position would not be filled under this proposal. As a result there will be a reduction of 1.0 FTE as illustrated below and an estimated annual savings of$73,6(X) in personnel costs. Current Budgeted Staff Positions: Proposed Staff Positions: CIP Director CIP Director/Building Official Building Official Permit Center Manager Plans Examiner Proposed Position Salary_Range Based on the duties and responsibilities of the proposed Permit ('enter Mtanager position it is recommended that the salary range he S2878 to 53785. • 4 40°" ' 1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Permit Center Coordinator oatcaN SALARY: $2,878-$3,785 (HE PosmoN: This position reports to the Building Official and supervises the daily activities of the bulking division staff. it directs the development of plans and programs;formulates and coordinates work assignments, and reviews documents. Additional responsibilities include: • Works with Engineering and Planning Divisions to implement customer service philosophy and objectives at the counter and in response to telephone inquiries. • Assists in preparing the annual division budget and work program. • Cordinates processing of applications;tracks,analyzes and reports on various related Information. • Attends meetings of the Building Code Board of Appeals as an ex-officio member. • Performs full scope of supervisory responsibilities of subordinate staff,including selection,training, evaluation and discipline. • Drafts and maintains a customer services procedures manual;trains staff in procedures and policies;trains other City personnel as requested;may conduct training on other related topics such as human relations skills. • Oversees the issuance of various permits after application requirements have been fulfilled and rules/regulations have been complied with. • Ensures fees are tracked and properly appropriated to City accounts. • Assists in the development and maintenance of customer information, inducing maps and handouts,using customer feedback. • Administers a computerized permit tracking system,coordinating system upgrades and requests for service; provides or coordinates staff training;and acts as liaison between vendor,the City and computer support personnel. • Prepares statistical reports as necessary. QUAUFlCATIONS: Preferred applicants will have a State of Oregon Certification as Building Official. Priority consideration will be given to candidates with a degree in Public Administration,a State of Oregon A-Level Plans Examiner or Level Building Inspector certification and at least four years of increasingly responsible professional and management experience related to building and development code administration. How ro APPLY: Applications may be picked up at Lake Oswego City Hall, 380 A Avenue or received by mail by sending a stamped,self addressed envelop to the Human Resources Office, Permit Center Coordinator Recruitment,P.Q. Box 369, Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034. Resumes will not be accepted In lieu of applications. Completed applications must be POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 24, 1994 EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY:The City of Lake Oswego is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer.All qualified persons will be considered for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, handicap,or any other nonment factor. Applicants who feel that their civil rights have been violated at any time dining the course of their consideration for employment with the City of Lake Oswego should contact the Personnel Officer of the City of Lake Oswego immediately. HOW TO APPLY: All anolicartts will be formally notified of the final status of their aeplicatiorL Applications are accepted only for specific position vacancies. Applicants must complete and submit the required application forms on or before the closing date specified in the job announcement.Applications submitted by mail must be postmarked no later than midnight of the closing date. . NOTE: In accordance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, employment of persons hired by the City after November 6, 1986 will be contingent upon presentation of acceptable documents verifying identity and authorization for employment in the United States. HEALTH: To ensure that applicants are not placed in a position which might be a hazard to themselves or others,a medical examination, prior to appointment to a position, will be required. Final appointment will be contingent upon the medical examination. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: • Holidays • Life Insurance and Accidental Death&Dismemberment Insurance • Vacation • Retirement • Sick Leave • Education Reimbursement • Medical insurance • Social Security • Dental Insurance • Credit Union SALARIES: All salaries, as stated, are based upon current information and are subject to change. Where a salary range is shown, appointment will normally be made at the minimum salary;however,higher salary appointments may be made,and are contingent upon applicant qualifications and experience. EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER RELATIONS: Applicants hired into positions represented by a labor union or association must either: 1)become and remain a member of the union/association;or 2)pay to the union/association a fair share amount of the costs of negotiation and administration. ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY: Lake Oswego is located approximately 8 miles south of Portland, Oregon. It adjoins a navigable stretch of the Willamette River;and,at the same time,encircles a 405 acre lake.The city covers approximately 8.5 square miles and has a population of approximately 31,000. Lake Oswego is hilly and wooded, providing an attractive environment for suburban living. The Lake Oswego area was settled in the mid-1880's because of the discovery of rich iron deposits. The turn of the century brought railroads and automobiles which gradually linked the town's prosperity with the greater Portland economy. Incorporation of the city occurred in 1910. In the first few decades of the century,the lake area was used as a summer residence location, and development of the lakeside property took place. Thereafter, the city transformed into a year-round residential community. The city's ultimate population is estimated to be about 50,000. ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT: The City of Lake Oswego operates under a home rule charter and a council/manager form of government. The seven-member City Council acts as a legislative body:and the City Manager,who serves at the pleasure of the City Council.acts as the administrative head of the City. The City Of Lake Oswego is a full-service city and furnishes water, sewer, police and fire protection, a library, and parks and recreation, among others. Waste water treatment is made available through facilities jointly shared with the City of Portland. The City's fire department provides protection through contracts with residents outside the City's boundaries. The school district is a separate governmental agency. r III - A - 2 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Request of the City of Sandy for a City of Lake Oswego resolution supporting its position on Wastewater Treatment Effluent Outfalls ISSUE: Should the City of Lake Oswego take a position supporting the City of Sandy on its sewage outfall preference? OPTIONS: 1. Support the City of Sandy regarding the use of the Sandy River. 2. Do not support the City of Sandy. 3. Take no position;notify the City of Sandy of decision. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager/Public Works FISCAL IMPACT: $ -0- I NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): N/A BUDGETED? ACCOUNT# ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation • Schoening memo of 21 October 1994 fulfill an identified City Council goal,past • Malone letter of 12 October 1994 or present? N/A (with sample resolution) Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X 4\CC*. CTL\AGENDACKJXX 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Douglas Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Mark Schoening, Assistant Public Works Director RE: City of Sandy Outfall Strategy DATE: October 21, 1994 The City of Sandy has requested that the Lake Oswego City Council adopt a resolution supporting Sandy's application to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for wastewater treatment effluent outfalls on Tickle Creek (a tributary of the Clackamas River) and the Sandy River. I have discussed both alternatives with Mike Walker, Public Works Director, Sandy and Richard Saunter, Project Officer, DEQ. I recommend that the City remain neutral on Sandy's permit applications for the following reasons: 1. The Tickle Creek outfall is supported by DEQ staff and will eliminate effluent discharge in the summer and require winter effluent discharges to meet current load allocations. This is a significant improvement over the current situation. However,as a water purveyor on the Clackamas River I do not believe that the City should support any wastewater treatment effluent discharges to the Clackamas River or any of its tributaries. 2. The Sandy River outfall may not receive DEQ staff support before the Environmental Quality Commission and will likely receive much opposition from the environmental community. City support of an outfall on the Sandy may be viewed as self-serving and result in negative publicity for Lake Oswego. 7 OCT 1994 N ro /' � CITY OF RECE{VE:.) Cr? , ' Soemoon ANDY �� SANDY � esc, ONE (503)668.5533 I 39250 PIONEER BOULEVARD • SANDY,OR 9 M. FAX FAX (503)6618-8714 Gateway to Mt. Hood October 12, 1994 Douglas Schmitz, City Manager City of Lake Oswego P 0 Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Dear Douglas: During the past four years, the city of Sandy has pursued an environmentally sound and economic response to a D.E.Q. mandate for discharge of treated effluent from our wastewater treatment facility. The mandate is to discharge under more stringent guidelines using our existing receiving stream, Tickle creek. Tickle Creek is a tributary of the Clackamas River Basin. You have a vested interest in the water quality of the Clackamas River for a potable water source. For those of you who have first hand knowledge of negotiations with the D.E.Q, you will understand that the city of sandy now stands at a crossroads like none other in it's history. Early on the D.E.Q. told our city council that we must consider the Sandy River as a potential outfall site. In total, the rate payers of our City paid $120,000 for a Sandy River study, the most comprehensive study of the river to date. We were reluctant to fund this study for the obvious reasons pertaining to a pristine recreation area and the environmental concerns of organized groups. The groups were asked to give input and participate in the study. Representatives of Oregon Rivers council and Friends of the Sandy River attended many meetings and their concerns were addressed directly. Follow up proved to be fruitful. Enclosed is a resolution supporting our current outfall strategy and the Sandy River outfall option. sandy is being considered as a "satellite city" in the Metro 2040 plan. Prudence dictates we plan for growth, and the "satellite city" concept is a tool we are using for this end. We know we will outgrow our outfall no. 1 plan (Tickle Creek) in the forseeable future. To be responsible elected officials, the city Council members have agreed that we must make a very strong statement to the D.E.Q. that the Sandy River outfall must be a viable option for growth and to protect the Clackamas River Basin for potable water users downstream from the City of Sandy. I am asking for your support by approving the attached resolution. This is a complicated issue, I would gladly entertain any phone calls or discussion you have regarding this subject. .nk you, inda K. Malone, ayor, city of sandy THE CRY OP SANDY IS AN EQUA1. (WPOR71/NfTY EMPLOYER AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE.ON TNR BASIS Of, RACE,RRI.101014,SEX OR NANOICAPPRD STATUS. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF SANDY'S APPLICATION FOR A DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR AN OUTFALL ON THE SANDY RIVER. WHEREAS, the quality of water of the Clackamas River and its tributaries is critical to downstream users who depend on the river as a source of drinking water; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy has completed a sewer system facilities plan that provides for higher standards for effluent discharge to the Clackamas system ( "outfall #1" ) , assuming a variance to the "dilution rule" ; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy's sewage system facilities plan's recommended disposal scheme relies on a Reuse Agreement with a local agricultural business to provide zero discharge to the Clackamas system during summer months; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy has recognized that this agreement is vulnerable to changes in the agricultural industry and other forces beyond the city's control; and WHEREAS, even with full wastewater reuse in the summer months, the Tickle Creek tributary to the Clackamas River may not offer sufficient capacity to accept effluent through Sandy's twenty year planning period; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy has completed a major study of the Sandy River that has demonstrated that the Sandy River, which is not used as a drinking water source, is a suitable receiving stream; and WHEREAS, in light of the restrictions and uncertainties that apply to the Clackamas River, the Sandy City Council has requested from DEQ a discharge permit for "outfall #2" on the Sandy River; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that shares the City of Sandy's concern with water quality on the Clackamas River, and supports Sandy's application to the Department of Environmental Quality for: 1 � A variance in the dilution rule that will enable the City of Sandy to carry out its plan for reuse of wastewater on agricultural land during summer months, and 2 ) A discharge permit for an outfall on the Sandy River. This resolution adopted and approved by on , 1994 . ATTEST: (Title: (Title: to i • ktAl 14%/9494) ti OCT 1994 o �.... CITY OF RECEIVEDcn ( SY ��► SANDYco ti I PHONE (503)668-5.5,i3 39250 PIONEER BOULEVARD • SAND , ,97055 %fro FAX (503)668-8714 /. n -14 Gateway to J�i7bg October 12, 1994 Alice Schlenker, Mayor city of Lake Oswego P O Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Dear Mayor Schlenker: During the past four years, the City of Sandy has pursued an environmentally sound and economic response to a D.E.Q. mandate for discharge of treated effluent from our wastewater treatment facility. The mandate is to discharge under more stringent guidelines using our existing receiving stream, Tickle Creek. Tickle Creek is a tributary of the Clackamas River Basin. You have a vested interest in the water quality of the Clackamas River for a potable water source. For those of you who have first hand knowledge of negotiations with the D.E.Q, you will understand that the city of sandy now stands at a crossroads like none other in it's history. Early on the D.E.Q. told our City Council that we must consider the Sandy River as a potential outfall site. In total, the rate payers of our City paid $120,000 for a Sandy River study, the most comprehensive study of the river to date. We were reluctant to fund this study for the obvious reasons pertaining to a pristine recreation area and the environmental concerns of organized groups. The groups were asked to give input and participate in the study. Representatives of Oregon Rivers council and Friends of the Sandy River attended many meetings and their concerns were addressed directly. Follow up proved to be fruitful. Enclosed is a resolution supporting our current outfall strategy and the sandy River outfall option. Sandy is being considered as a "satellite city" in the Metro 2040 plan. Prudence dictates we plan for growth, and the "satellite city" concept is a tool we are using for this end. We know we will outgrow our outfall no. 1 plan (Tickle Creek) in the forseeable future. To be responsible elected officials, the City Council members have agreed that we must make a very strong statement to the D.E.Q. that the Sandy River outfall must be a viable option for growth and to protect the Clackamas River Basin for potable water users downstream from the City of Sandy. I am asking for your support by approving the attached resolution. This is a complicated issue, I would gladly entertain any phone calls or discussion you have regarding this subject. T ank you, ' )7141)--h-e-___1 CL. da K. Malone, , ayor, City of sandy 11 TIS CITY OI' SANDY IS AN EQIJAI. OI'PORTSINITY EMPLOYER AND DOES NOT DISCIIIMD4ATE ON THE !ASIS OP RACE, RELIGION,SEX OR HANDICAPPED STATUS. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF SANDY'S APPLICATION FOR A DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR AN OUTFALL ON THE SANDY RIVER. WHEREAS, the quality of water of the Clackamas River and its tributaries is critical to downstream users who depend on the river as a source of drinking water; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy has completed a sewer system facilities plan that provides for higher standards for effluent discharge to the Clackamas system ( "outfall #1" ) , assuming a variance to the "dilution rule" ; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy's sewage system facilities plan's recommended disposal scheme relies on a Reuse Agreement with a local agricultural business to provide zero discharge to the Clackamas system during summer months; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy has recognized that this agreement is vulnerable to changes in the agricultural industry and other forces beyond the city's control; and WHEREAS, even with full wastewater reuse in the summer months, the Tickle Creek tributary to the Clackamas River may not offer sufficient capacity to accept effluent through Sandy' s twenty year planning period; and WHEREAS, the City of Sandy has completed a major study of the Sandy River that has demonstrated that the Sandy River, which is not used as a drinking water source, is a suitable receiving stream; and WHEREAS, in light of the restrictions and uncertainties that apply to the Clackamas River, the Sandy City Council has requested from DEQ a discharge permit for "outfall #2" on the Sandy River; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that shares the City of Sandy' s concern with water quality on the Clackamas River, and supports Sandy's application to the Department of Environmental Quality for: 1 ) A variance in the dilution rule that will enable the City of Sandy to carry out its plan for reuse of wastewater on agricultural land during summer months , and 2 ) A discharge permit for an outfall on the Sandy River. This resolution adopted and approved by on , 1994 . ATTEST: (Title: (Title: 1 ' III - A - 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 11/01/94 AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1,1994 SUBJECT: Completion of election waiver requirements for street widenings on 65th Avenue and Greentree Road. ISSUE: Should the City Council accept the report? OVI1ONS: 1. Accept report 2. Do not accept report. 3 Pull from consent agenda and discuss. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Recorder FISCAL IMPACT: N/A NOTICED (Date): September 22, 1994 EXPENDITURE: PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVENUE: $ CONSIDERATION September 20, 1994 [Date(s)]: BUDGETED? YES NO ACCOUNT Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present: NIA Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's ATTACHMENTS: policy manual? Yes No XX 24 October, 1994 Hitchcock memorandum k:\kr ti\check 13 �ti -, L� onaoll COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor Alice L. Schlenker and Members of the City Council FROM: Kristi Hitchk, City Recorder SUBJECT: Completion of Noticing Period for Street Widenings for 65th Avenue and Greentree Road DATE: 24 October, 1994 The City Council approved street widenings for 65th Avenue and Greentree Road at their meeting held September 20, 1994. Following Council action, notice of the proposed street widenings were distributed in accordance with provisions of the City Charter. The purpose of this memo is to advise you that no petition on either project was received; therefore, the election requirement is waived and construction may proceed. KH:ms cc: Jerry Baker, Public Works Director Wayne Halverson, Development Coordinator Ron Besflug, CIP Director 15 III - A - 4 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: EMS Arbitration Award Contract Amendment ISSUE: Should the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment implementing an interest arbitration award OPTIONS: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment 2. Do Not authorize the City Manger to execute an amendment 3. Adjourn to Executive Session RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Human Resources Office FISCAL IMPACT: Yes NOTICED (Date): n/a EXPENDITURE: Estimated: $18,000 annually PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVENUE: None CONSIDERATION n/a (Date(s)]: BUDGETED? YES NO X ACCOUNT Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present: n/a Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's ATTACHMENTS: policy manual? Yes No X October 19, 1994 Memo from R.A. Kincaid to D.J. Schmitz k:\kristi\check 17 MEMORANDUM To: Douglas J. Schmitz,City Manager From: Robert A. Kincaid, Assistant City Manager Subject: EMS Arbitration Award Contract Amendment Date: October 19, 1994 ACTION Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment implementing an interest arbitration award. BACKGROUND The Public Employer Collective Bargaining Act requires the City to enter into negotiations over certain subjects even though the City may have a valid contract on the subject. Midterm or"impact bargaining"can be triggered in a number of different ways. When the City implemented the ambulance program with AMR, the change and impact was sufficient to require midterm bargaining over EMT Incentive Pay. During the course of bargaining, impasse was reached. In the case of a public safety bargaining unit, impasse is resolved by binding interest arbitration. The attached contract amendment reflects the decision of the arbitrator after hearing the parties respective cases. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. 19 CONTRACT AMENDMENT This contract amendment is made by and between the International Association of Firefighters, local 1159 and the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. This contract amendment is made to the 1992-94 collective bargaining agreement between the parties as a result of an interest arbitration award. Effective May 1, 1994, the contract amendment shall amend Article XXI and read as follows: 21.1 The City shall compensate up to twelve employees who have obtained and maintained their emergency medical technician II and IID or"Intermediate"Certificate at the rate of 2.5% of their hourly rate. 21.2 The City shall compensate up to six employees who have obtained and maintained their emergency medical technician III Certificate at the rate of 6% or IV or"Paramedic" Certificate at the rate of 8.25% of their hourly rate. In Witness Thereof, the parties to this contract amendment have set their hands and seals this day of November, 1994. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1159 By By Douglas J. Schmitz President, Local 1159 City Manager 20 III - B 11 /01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Resolution 94-58- Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Lake Oswego and the University of Oregon ISSUE: Should the City of Lake Oswego adopt Resolution 94-58 and enter into an IGA with the University of Oregon so that the U of 0 may, through cooperation with the City, develop alternative Land Use Scenarios for the North Stafford Area? OPTIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution 2. Do not adopt Resolution 3. Pull from consent and discuss RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning and Development FISCAL IMPACT: $1,500 NOTICED (Date): N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION EXPENDITURE: $1,500 REVENUE: $ [Date(s)]: N/A BUDGETED? YES X NO ACCOUNT#431-000 ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past 1. Planning Staff Report Dated October 14, 1994 or present? 2. Resolution 94-58 with attached agreement 3. Attachment A, Stafford Area Task Force position Yes, management of the Urban Growth statement Boundary 4. Attachment B, Proposed Scope of work Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X 9 N erA*� C�QE �iL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Ron Bunch, Senior Planner DATE: October 14, 1994 RE: Intergovernmental Agreement with University of Oregon (U of 0) INTRODUCTION Attached is Resolution 94-58 authorizing the Mayor to enter into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the University of Oregon so that the U of 0 Department of Landscape Architecturem may, through cooperation with the City, develop alternative land use scenarios for the North Stafford area. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION As the 2040 Land Use Concept nears adoption, the Stafford Area Policy Task Force (Task Force) wishes to continue its proactive position to maintain the open space and rural character of the North Stafford Area. The Task Force feels this ongoing effort is important because of potential changes which may occur as a result of upcoming Metro elections and future regi Dna' planning efforts. Other circumstances may also effect the future character of the Stafford Area. The current 2040 Land Use Concept identifies an Urban Reserve Study Area along Lake Oswego's southern boundary. This area encompasses about 200±acres. Also, a group of about 16 property owners in the North Stafford Area, which collectively control about 483 acres of predomi?iantly exclusive farm use(EFU) lands, have organized to express the desire to develop their properties at a higher density than allowed by EFU zoning. Because of these issues, the Task Force has asked the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon to use the North Stafford Area ai, a design studio project. The design studio will conduct an overall site analysis of lands in the North Stafford Area, north of Rosemont Road, and develop design concepts to show how additional housing could be accommodated while simultaneously maintaining the agricultural 380"A" Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Planning Division:(503)635-0290• Building Division:(503)635-0390 • FAX(503)635-0269 3 2 . i I a capability, natural resource, open space, and rural character of the area. The design studio will be focus on alternatives to conventional development such as cluster housing that is carefully sited to achieve the above objectives. The result of this effort will be drawings and a publication which the Task Force can use to evaluate future land use options for the North Stafford Area The Department of Planning and Development has taken the lead in coordinating the study with the University. In addition, the Department has committed $1,500 from its authorized budget for professional and technical services to assist the Department of Landscape Architecture with relevant expenses. Because this is a joint effort between two units of state government, and City funds are involved, an ORS 190 Intergovcrnmental Agreement is necessary between Lake Oswego and the University. h nucrplct sly. 24 RESOLUTION 94-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS FOR A PORTION OF THE NORTH STAFFORD AREA TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THE NATURAL RESOURCES, OPEN SPACE AND RURAL CHARAC1•ER AND AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF THESE LANDS CAN BE MAINTAINED AND ENHANCED WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 to 190.030 allows units of government to enter into agreement for performance of any or all functions and activities which such units have authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Lake Oswego as a signatory of, "A Joint Statement of Position of the Stafford Area Task Force Regarding the Future Land Use Pattern of the North Stanford Area," has a mutual interest with the other members of the Stanford Area Policy Task force in the future character and land use pattern of said area; and WHEREAS, the Stafford Area Task Force has determined that a land use plan that emphasizes rural landscape planning concepts as an alternative to conventional development is needed to illustrate how the natural resources, open space and rural character, and agricultural capability of the North Stafford Area can be maintained and enhanced; and WHEREAS, The Department of Landscape Architecture of the University desires to study how rural landscape planning design principles can be applied to the North Stafford Area as part of a LA 489 Design Studio during Fall Term, 1994; and WHEREAS, The City's and University's objectives are mutually supportive; NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The Mayor execute on behalf of the City of Lake Oswego, an Agreement, attached as Exhibit "A" between the City and the University of Oregon to cooperate in the development of alternative land use scenarios for a portion of the north Stafford Area. Considered and enacted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held on day of , 1994. Resolution 94-58 Page 1of2 Jr• AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVE) • TO FORM: OP /A' .Porn 's •Pce Resolution 94-58 Page 2 of 2 rcsostaf.are 26 EXHIBIT "A" INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AND THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON This agreement made and entered into this day of , 1994 is between the CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO(City) a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon and the DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ALLIED ARTS, A PART OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON (University). WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 to 190.030 allows units of government to enter into agreement for performance of any or all functions and activities which such units have authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Lake Oswego as a signatory of, "A Joint Statement of Position of the Stafford Area Task Force Regarding the Future Land Use Pattern of the North Stanford Area," (Joint Position Statement) (Attachment "A") has a mutual interest with the other members of the Stanford Area Policy Task force in the future character and land use pattern of said area; and WHEREAS, the Stafford Area Task Force has determined that a land use plan that emphasizes rural landscape planning concepts as an alternative to conventional development is needed to illustrate how the natural resources, open space and rural character, and agricultural capability of the North Stafford Area can be maintained and enhanced; and WHEREAS, The Department of Landscape Architecture of the University desires to study how rural landscape planning design principles can be applied to the North Stafford Area as part of a LA 489 Design Studio during Fall Term, 1994; and WHEREAS, The City's and University's objectives are mutually supportive; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the University agree to cooperate in the development of a design and land use study of a portion of the North Stafforo Area to address the above objectives. Further, both parties agree as follows: 1. Financial Support: The City of Lake Oswego shall reimburse the University a ::um up to $1,500 for expenses associated with the project. These expenses include travel, materials, priming, publishing, photo-copying, lodging and other relevant costs. The University shall keep a record of expenses and receipts and shall present the same when requesting reimbursement from the City. The University shall request approval in advance from the City for one time expenses which exceed $500.00. 2. City Staff Support: City staff shall provide necessary background information pertaining to the Stafford area and review the design studio's work as requested by the University's representative. 3. University Production and Publication of North Stafford Alternative Development Plan: 1 27 The University shall produce alternative development scenarios for the study area and prepare a related publication on the same. This material shall be in a form so it may be used by the Stafford Area Polley Area Task to communicate to other government agencies, citizens and property owners the feasibility using alternative development scenarios as a means to maintain the natural resources, open space and rural character, and agricultural capability of the North Stafford Area. The University shall present its work to the Stafford Area Policy Task Force in November, 1994 and furnish a publication on the satnc by February, 1995. The nature and format of the material shall generally follow the descriptions contained in the attached LA 489 prospectus (Attachment "B"). The City of Lake Oswego and other signatories to the "Joint Position Statement" shall be able to reproduce and have full use of all drawings, publications and background materials developed as part of this project. 4. Joint and Good Faith Cooperation The City and University shall jointly work together in good faith to meet each other's objectives in this endeavor. 5. Termination of Agreement This Agreement shall be terminated upon submittal of the above referenced publication or by February, 15, 1994 whichever occurs first. Extension of the Agreement may occur upon mutual consent of both parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the respective parties have caused to be signed in their behalf and enter into this agreement on this day of , 1994. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO By Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor Attest Kris Hitchcock, City Recorder UNIVERISTY OF OREGON By Title h igauost.arr 2 , ATTACHMENT "A" A JOINT STATEMENT OF POSITION OF THE STAFFORD AREA TASK FORCE REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN OF THE NORTH STAFFORD AREA I. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS: 1. The area known as the North Stafford Area, consisting of approximately 3000 acres located outside the current Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary and the Urban Service Boundaries of Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and West Linn and north of Interstate 205 is of mutual interest to Clackamas County, Lake Oswego, Tualatin, West Linn and the residents and property owners of the area, and; 2. Representatives of the cities of Lake Oswego, West Linn, Tualatin, Clackamas County, the Stafford-Tualatin Community Planning Organization, and the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, formed the Stafford Area Task Force on June 11, 1992. West Linn - Wilsonville School District became a member in August, 1993, and; 3. The Stafford Area Task Force has met quarterly beginning November 5, 1992 to be informed of and discuss land use and public facility issues pertaining to the North Stafford Area, especially events that might cause the area to be included within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary, and, 4. Past planning and public facilities studies and investigations by the Stafford Area Task Force have shown the provision of public facilities and services, including sanitary sewer, water, transportation, surface water management, public safety, etc. at urban levels to the North Stafford Area would be difficult and beyond the fiscal capacity of area residents and surrounding jurisdictions, and, 5. Development within the North Stafford Area necessary to make it financially feasible to provide adequate infrastructure pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals would require urban level densities to the extent that negative and irrevocable impacts on surrounding communities would occur, and, 6. Urbanization of the North Stafford Area would result in severe impacts on the regional and local transportation system, including degrading the capacity of Interstate 205, I-5, and Highway 43, and local street and roadway systems, and, 7. Urban development of the North Stafford Area would create increased demand for already limited federal, state and local funds necessary to fund street and roadway safety and capacity improvements required to accommodate increased automobile travel in the Portland Metropolitan Area, and, 8. The provision of new urban infrastructure in the North Stafford Area would divert public funds from other areas of more critical need such as improving existing public facilities 9ti and services already at capacity, providing water and sewer services to areas already within the UGB, and implementing regional transportation alternatives such as light rail, and, 9. Urbanization of the North Stafford Area would have negative and irrevocable impacts on the air, water and land resource quality of the area and on surrounding jurisdictions, and, 10. Including the North Stafford Area into the Portland Metropolitan Urban (;rowth Boundary would result in urban sprawl and a decline in livability of the Portland Metropolitan arca because of increased traffic congestion and auto dependency; degraded air, water and natural resources quality; diminishment of the area's tranquility, and; high public costs for infrastructure including public schools; and, therefore would be contrary to Statewide Planning Goals and Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, and, 11. The cost of providing services made necessary by including the North Stafford Area into the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary would result in increased tax burdens on existing and future residents of the area and on surrounding jurisdictions who have clearly objected to increased taxes. Continuation of the existing planned development pattern in the North Stafford Area would more likely result in a balance of tax revenues and required services and continue to lend value as open space to adjacent communities. 12. Including the Stafford Arca into the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary and the provision of publicly funded facilities and services would continue to enhance private land values at public expense. II. CONCLUSIONS 1. The future land use pattern of the North Stafford Area should not be "urban," but should maintain the rural character and open space values of the area. This requires most of the area to remain outside the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary; not be designated as a future satellite city as part of the Metro 2040 Plan and not be designated as an Urban Reserve Area. _'. The future land use pattern of the Stafford Area should be consistent with the capacity of the existing transportation system and commensurate funding capacity to accommodate future transportation needs. 3. The future land use pattern should be compatible with areas planned for agricultural uses and practices and allow agricultural activities to continue in these areas. 4. The future land use pattern should be consistent with ;the capacity and availability of existing public facilities and services, including education, and the provision of these services should not exceed the fiscal capacity of area residents and local governments to provide these services. 2 3 () 5. The future land use pattern of the Stafford Arca should be comprehensively planned by Clackamas Countyycitizen groups and involved area jurisdictions to: a. Preserve the air, water, and land resource quality of the area, and; b. Provide safe, and efficient transportation consistent with the area's needs, and; c. Encourage continued use of planned agricultural lands and ensure future development is compatible with agricultural practices, and; d. Ensure future development is consistent with the capacity of existing public facilities and services, and; e. Preserve the rural character and open space values of the, arca and; f. Establish criteria to evaluate any future Urban Growth Boundary expansion. SIGNATURES: .... ... ... .• - /API 41110* . 14 a, 1* .a2-Pm.,_,/)4j Mayor Alice L. ch enkcr /x/9/93 ' ommissioner Judie tlaninmcrstad /- W5 City of Lake Oswego Clackamas County ir 411:41141.L' ge: 2.------Mayor ll Thorn r�'. /Q� ouncilor Richard r ',er /17/y/�� City of West Linn / City f Tualatin / • h i/. Le, ii Dr. Ja Kuhl, Neighborhood Marlys Rutherf rd, Chair / 9 '. Repr .entative /21//9'3 Stafford-Tual in Community Planning Organization <--j_et--/ 4)//44,(A14-- .-- ...Q.01-1 C). )._ _c)),- C of arkt, Neighborhood Representative Debra Wall, Neighborhood Representative • /2/9 3 i 2/42 17-------- ---- Drri ogcr Wochl, Superintendent /127 /.> West l..inn - Wilsonville School District bswire,di, 3 31 ATTACHMENT "B" Department of Landscape Architecture School of Architecture and Allied Arts University of Oregon LA 489 F94 Girling NORTH STAFFORD AREA Envisioning a Rural Future for an Urban Buffer 1. . :dt , ... „,, rih This studio will propose alternative development scenarios for a 3000 acre site sandwiched between the Urban Services Boundaries of Lake Oswego,Tualatin,and West Linn. The site is under pressure for development to 5 acre lots,however, there is public and local government sentiment against this proposal and in favor of retaining the agricultural practices and rural landscape character of the site. On the other hand, some land owners in this area aspire to subdivide their properties. The Stafford Area Policy Task Force,Clackamas County, and the City of Lake Oswego have approached the Department of Landscape Architecture to study the site,describe its landscape characteristics and prepare scenarios for a rural future for the site. Specifically they have asked that students apply design principles from Rural by Design(Arendt, Brabec,Dobson,Ried and Yaro) and create plans and drawings which blend modest increases in housing with open space reserves. Development would have to be non- conventional and should not require expansion of urban services such as sewers,water and transportation systems. They have provided modest funding for the studio and have requested that we publish the results of the study. The educational focus of the studio will be to understand,evaluate and appropriately utilize the design principles presented by the authors of Rural by Design . Additionally, we will September 14, 1994 33 utilize the work in Ten Essentials for a Quality Regional Landscape by Dr.Rob Ribe and students(Metro, 1992). We will employ our environmental analysis skills to convincingly argue about what types and scales of development are possible while retaining the site's visual,agricultural,and ecological integrity. Our design process will emphasize the following: •our description of the landscape will be based on very basic interpretation of existing site data accompanied by our own interpretive studies of the site's qualities. Much of this work will be expressed in simple diagrams and sketches. •with assistance from our clients,the class as a whole will select 3 to 4 sites for additional development,and on each site we will pursue several different models for the future. For each model or cell of the matrix,we will conduct additional site interpretation, propose a plan,study the edges and transitions between housing and open space,and produce lots of imagery. •our final product will be a document which summarizes both the site interpretation work and the proposed matrix of development options. All students will supply text and drawings, however the report will be produced after the term by the instructor and a couple of students. • over the course of the term we will work on diagrams,3D sketches, models, maps,plans and cross sections. All drawings will be black-line drawings for easy reproduction in the final report. We will do B/W photos of the models. People who wish to work digitally will be encouraged. Attached is an outline of the proposed matrix,the first run on the term's schedule and a reference list. An additional handout includes a project description from our contact at Lake Oswege,Ron Bunch,and a position statement by the task force. September 14. 1994 2 34 III — C - 1 11 /01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: September 26, 1994 meeting minutes ISSUE: Should the City Council approve the September 26, 1994 minutes as written? OPTIONS: 1. Approve minutes. 2. Do not approve minutes. 3. Pull from Consent and make changes. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager FISCAL IMPACT: $ N/A I NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): N/A BUDGETED? ACCOUNT # ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation September 26, 1994 meeting minutes. fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present? N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X M \,,,L\CII.\AGCKMIN.IX x' 35 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO September 26, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES STUDY SESSION Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the City Council study session to order on September 26, 1994 at 7:30 a.m. in the Human Resources Conference Room. Mayor Schlenker,Councilors Anderson,Chrisman,Klammer, Holstein and Puskas were present. Also present were Doug Schmitz,City Manager, and Kris Hitchcock,City Recorder. III. OTHER ITEMS A. Request by the Lions Club to use the City Logo with their logo on a sail. Mayor Schlenker stated that the Lion's Club has asked by telephone to use the city's logo with their lion superimposed on it. After discussion, the Council decided by consensus to deny the request. B. Other 1. Agenda Review. Metro Greenspaces - Mayor Schlenker clarified her statements last week regarding park land acquisition. She directed attention to a document that detailed the Council's position, the amount of money, and what Council was trying to do with the funds. She suggested a work session on the issue. IV. STUDY SESSION Water - City of Tigard. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, reviewed the status of the water agreement with Tigard and made the following points: • Staff negotiated a long term contract with Tigard, which Tigard decided not to sign. City Council Minutes Page 1 of 6 September 26, 1994 37 • Lake Oswego currently has no contract with Tigard to sell them water beyond December 31, 1994. • The three options available to Council were: • Option 1: Maintain the status quo; • Option 2: Sell water as Lake Oswego has done in the past and pay for the capital improvements by themselves (Market option); • Option 3: Tigard bought into part of the Lake Oswego system with the creation of a separate entity made up of Lake Oswego and Tigard personnel (Equity option). • These options were based on three assumptions: • Tigard wanted to deal with Lake Oswego rather than with Portland; • Lake Oswego wanted to deal with Tigard; and, • Tigard would not deal with Lake Oswego at any cost. • No negotiations have begun-Tigard has simply said that they prefer an equity partnership,and asked if Lake Oswego has an interest in negotiating with them to create that relationship. Mark Schoening presented the staff report and made the following points: • Option 1 (Status Quo): • Tigard developed a long term water agreement with someone else; • Lake Oswego lost the revenue from the water sales; • Lake Oswego maintained ownership of the large supply system; • Capital improvements were not required until 2010; • The system did not have as much redundancy and was therefore less reliable. • Option 2 (Market): • Lake Oswego owned, operated and maintained control of the entire system; • Lake Oswego funded all capital improvements to serve both Lake Oswego and Tigard; • Lake Oswego would have long terms savings and stability in rates for the next 20 years; • Lake Oswego would be a stronger regional political entity; • The system would have greater redundancy and inter-ties with Tigard; • This was similar to Lake Oswego's agreement with Portland to use the Tryon Creek plant; • Option 3 (Equity): • Lake Oswego and Tigard would be partners with Lake Oswego maintaining majority control of the new board; • Greater redundancy and reliability in the system; City Council Minutes Page 2 of 6 September 26, 1994 33 • They could bond capital improvements based on both Tigard's and Lake Oswego's water utilities for greater financial strength; • They would have greater political strength on regional issues; • They had the potential of a cash buy-in from Tigard which would help offset rate increases; • Since this was the option initially favored by Tigard, it would be the easiest one to negotiate. • Things common to all options: • Water rates would increase; • Lake Oswego retained their water rights. In the ensuing discussion, the following issues were raised or comments made: • What would be the effect on the water rights if Tigard wanted to pull out of an equity agreement? • The City retained the water rights in any case, as Tigard's ownership did not begin until the commodity came into the treatment plant. • In Option 2,Tigard would help pay for capital improvements through the rates, similar to how Lake Oswego paid for Tryon Creek improvements. • In Option 3,staff intended to do an appraisal to ascertain if$6 million dollars was the correct figure for the Tigard cash buy-in. • Tigard is in a very bad position because they had no water system of their own. • Under Option 3 with the cash buy-in from Tigard, would the water rates of Tigard and Lake Oswego be comparable? • Staff thought that the Tigard rates would probably remain higher than Lake Oswego's; • What was the difference between the current revenue stream in bulk water sales and the new revenue stream under Option 3? • The bulk water sales declined under both Options 1 and 3. • Bulk water sales declined under Option 1 because Tigard would decrease their purchases of water over time, as they tied into another system to meet their long term water needs. • Sales declined under Option 3 because the cost of the water was included in Tigard's payment of half the capital,operation and maintenance costs (instead of their buying the water directly). • Would Lake Oswego give up a portion of its water rights by guaranteeing Tigard a certain amount of water (as opposed to their purchasing excess as they did now). • Technically, Tigard would not have any water rights but they would have a equity position in the end product of water delivery. • What was the advantage to Lake Oswego ratepayers in going for one option over another? City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 September 26, 1994 3 9 • The cash buy-in contained in Option 3 helped to offset Lake Oswego rates. • • Option 3 provides for cheaper long term operation and maintenance costs. • In the long run, it is cheaper to go with Tigard because (though the capital improvements were more expensive) the expense was more than offset by the operations and maintenance costs and the cash buy-in. Patt Thomas, citizen, expressed concern about the effect on Lake Oswego's water rights if all water entities in the region merged into one large entity in the future. She asked if Lake Oswego would lose water from the Clackamas River because it would go to other water authorities (especially if Portland wanted more water from the Clackamas River). Mayor Schlenker stated that she thought merging into a large water authority would protect Lake Oswego's interests in the long term. Bruce Griswold, Finance Director, commented on the financial aspects of the three options. • Things all three options have in common: • Annual increases for all expenses; • Assumption that the 5 year CIP would be completed; • No increases to City water users for the next 20 years. • Option 1: • Tigard continued to buy bulk water from Lake Oswego in the short term. • Lake Oswego would sell a revenue bond to fund the water treatment plant expansion. • The City could either gradually increase rates over time, or dramatically increase rates at the time the costs significantly increase. • Option 2: • The City funds all capital improvements internally and charges Tigard back through the rates. • There would be a significant increase in revenue from Tigard. • Option 3 (staff recommendation): • Tigard would pay a lump sum for their cash buy-in. In the ensuing discussion, the following issues were raised or comments made: • $6.5 million was a low figure for what Tigard was getting. The$6.5 million figure for Tigard's buy-in was subject to revision based on the yet to be done appraisal. • Though staff assumed no rate increases to City users, they realized that is not realistic and were trying to mitigate the long term impacts on Lake Oswego ratepayers through the Tigard agreement. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 September 26, 1994 40 • Though the public's perception is that they are paying a lot for water and sewer in Lake Oswego, in reality,Lake Oswego has low rates in comparison to other cities in the region. • Council established a policy to apply gradual rate increases a couple of years ago because there hadn't been a water rate increase for 8 or 9 years. • How would Lake Oswego pass the costs of complying with new federal regulations on to Tigard? • There would be a provisional agreement which would contain language to ensure that, as the capital, operation and maintenance costs increased,so would recovery of those costs. • How would Lake Oswego handle possible dissatisfaction from Tigard customers when they saw the low Lake Oswego rates in comparison to the Tigard rates and concluded that Tigard was subsidizing Lake Oswego? • There could be a paragraph in the agreement stating that this was the best option available to Tigard. Duane Cline, Maintenance Services Director, reviewed the capital equipment necessary to implement the options. He made the following points: • Population projections up to 2020 were 46,900 for Lake Oswego and 51,700 for Tigard, with an estimated total water usage of 36 million gallons per day. • Going with Tigard would mean an immediate need for capital improvements to the system (otherwise improvements could wait till 2010). • Discussed capital improvements needed with or without Tigard (as shown on the chart). • Lake Oswego's intake from the Willamette River has been downgraded from 16 million gallons a day to 8.5 million because of current fish regulations. • Stated that because of the new regional water study, more water may become available in the Clackamas River. • Lake Oswego has Clackamas River senior water rights for 32 million gallons and junior water rights for 6 million gallons. • Lake Oswego could probably get 38 million gallons without using any Willamette River water. Councilor Holstein moved to adopt Option 3. Councilor Klammer seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. Councilor Holstein moved to keep a majority of seats of the governing body, and checking with legal counsel as to the 3-4-3. Councilor Klammer seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson,Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 6 September 26, 1994 41 The Council acknowledged that they understood that rates would have to be increased at some time in order to build a cash reserve to fund the necessary capital improvements. Mayor Schlenker commented that they needed more information before they could address that issue. V. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, - iisct Ng-0( L Krist3/l-Iitchcock,City Recorder APPROVED BY COUNCIL: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 6 of 6 September 26, 1994 /1 :2 II I I III - C - 2 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEEI"ING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: September 27, 1994 meeting minutes ISSUE: Should the City Council approve the September 27, 1994 minutes as written? OPTIONS: 1. Approve minutes. 2. Do not approve minutes. 3. Pull from Consent and make changes. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager FISCAL IMPACT: $ N/A I NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): N/A BUDGETED? ACCOUNT# ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation September 27, 1994 meeting minutes. fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present? N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X M kiC4.1'w:12 1AOCEM1N.DOC 43 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO September 27, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ANNUAL MEETING WITH THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the annual meeting of the City Council and the Library Advisory Board to order at 5:30 on September 27, 1994 in the City Council Chambers. Mayor Schlenker,Councilors Anderson,Chrisman, Klammer and Puskas were present. Also present were Herb Bumgarner, Library Board; Jane Starnes, Library Board Vice Chair; Doug Schmitz,City Manager; Bob Kincaid, Assistant City Manager; Lee Wicklund, Library Board;Carole Dickerson, Library Director;Jack Lundeen, Library Board Chair; and Kris Hitchcock, City Recorder. Councilor Holstein and Diane Ruminiski, Library Board were excused. III. MEETING WITH LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD A. Presentation of Annual Report Carole Dickerson, Library Director, reported the library statistics for 1993/94: • Over 650,000 items were circulated from the library's collection. • This more than doubled the 305,000 items circulated 10 years ago. • The population service area of 46,000 included Lake Oswego and a portion of Clackamas County. • On the average, each individual checked out 14 books a year from the library, meaning that the library was very busy. • Volunteers logged in over 11,000 hours last year (equivalent to 5 and 1/3 full-time employees or a value of over$95,000). • The summer reading program enrolled over 1,000 children. • Enrollment for the teen reading program was pushing 200. • They had 115 registrations at the volunteer recognition breakfast. Ms. Dickerson mentioned that Mayor Schlenker served on the intergovernmental Library Futures Committee which looked at funding and government issues for county wide library service. lane Starnes, Vice Chair, reported on activities for the endowment fund: • They were continuing to use the traditional methods of direct solicitations and mailings. City Council Minutes Page 1 of 16 September 27, 1994 45 • A new event to publicize the endowment fund was "Music on Thursdays", a series of musical events at the library featuring a variety of music and artists. • Money for the endowment fund came mostly in small amounts, though the fund was set up to accept large amounts. Herb Bumearner reported on the Booktique and the Friends of the Library activities, using a handout: • The Booktique opened in October 1991 as an outgrowth of the Annual Book Sale. • They expected to reach$100,000 total revenue by the end of the year. • The Booktique was staffed completely by volunteers (c. 17) with donated or loaned equipment, very low overhead, and was open 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday. • Directed attention to the list of items purchased for the library by the Friends, noting in particular the pending purchase of the Oregonian on microfilm and CD ROM. • Directed attention to the grant summary. • Explained the Friends' process for meeting the library's requests. Tack Lundeen,Chair,expressed concern that the generosity of the Friends in meeting library needs would not be used to offset the City budget for the library. The Friends intended their donations to be beyond items normally considered for the budget. Mayor Schlenker expressed her appreciation for the Friends' work, commenting that she had never thought of their contributions in terms of reducing the City's overall funding of the library. Chair Lundeen noted that he, Ms. Dickerson, Mayor Schlenker and Councilor Chrisman served on a Political Action Committee which is attempting to get the three year serial levy turned into a replacement tax base measurer. It will be on the November ballot. Chair Lundeen presented the second draft of a request for proposal for a consultant to identify what capital improvements could be made to the library. He reviewed the scope of work, emphasizing that the end result was to give - concrete suggestions on implementing the mission, goals and objectives of the library to serve the community beyond buildout (including costs and recommendations for needs over the next 10 to 20 years). City Council Minutes Page 2 of 16 September 27, 1994 46 Mayor Schlenker noted that 70%of the police/fire levy went to the library. She concurred with Chair Lundeen that this study needs to provide hard data to use in meeting the growing demand for library services. B. Discussion of items of mutual interest Councilor Anderson complimented the Board on their work, and reported that he had heard negative comments regarding the treatment of children at the library. Ms. Dickerson stated that they tried to draw children into the library, and that she did not wish to see them treated shabbily once they were there. Chair Lundeen commented that allowing kids to have input into management might help this situation. Councilor Chrisman expressed her support of the library and the Booktique. She noted that the library hours were short,and commented that the Booktique could make even more money in a better location with longer hours. Ms. Dickerson agreed that the hours were short, citing fiscal constraints. Chair Lundeen commented that they wanted to stabilize the funding at the November 8 election. Mayor Schlenker reemphasized that the library was dependent on that serial levy. IV. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the September 27 study session to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Court. Councilors Klammer,Chrisman,Mayor Schlenker, Puskas, Anderson and Holstein were present. Ron Bunch, Planning; Doug Schmitz, City Manager; Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Condit, City Attorney; Kris Hitchcock, City Recorder; and Leon Stiles, Metro, were also present. Members in the audience included Patt Thomas,resident; Dallas Finn, Lake Oswego Review; Dee Denton, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce;John Pullen, citizen;Jerry Woods, citizen; Don Stark,special attorney to the City of Lake Oswego; Mike Streiter, citizen;Tim Lafferty,Catherine Matthias,resident; Herald Campbell, Oswego Heritage Council President; Bill White; and, Paul Graham and Roger Hennagin, Friends of the Willamette Shore Trolley. City Council Minutes Page 3 of 16 September 27, 1994 47 • Regional Transportation Issues and Willamette Shore Consortium Trolley Issues Mayor Schlenker explained that the meeting would cover various transportation issues facing the region at this time; the issues were inter-related and the decision- making time was rapidly approaching. Ron Bunch,Senior Planner, noted that there were six Metro and regional transportation planning projects that would directly affect Lake Oswego, and reviewed two of them: • The I-5/217 sub-area plan (looking at the timeline): • In November 1994, ODOT would begin Phase I, Research and Inventory. - A Technical Advisory Committee and a Steering Group would be formed (Mayor Schlenker was Lake Oswego's representative on the Steering Group). - The Technical Advisory Committee (elected officials and staff) would keep ODOT and the consultant apprised of what was happening in their local road systems. - The Steering Group would keep ODOT and the consultant apprised of the political reality. • Phase 2 was defining alternatives within three categories: - The Phoenix Plan . - A modified plan. - A new design of the I-5/217 intersection. • Financially, Lake Oswego has contributed $21,000 to participate in the Waluga Triangle Transportation Land Use Management Plan, and $12,500 for the I-5/217 project. • Phase 3 to define the preferred system plan, looking at the overall design. • The Technical Advisory Committee would bring a different perspective to the project because it would include local jurisdictions considering the project within the overall context of the subarea, not simply looking at it from an intersection standpoint. • A final recommendation should be made by September 1995. • The Waluga Triangle Transportation Land Use Management Plan: • This study was in conjunction with Clackamas County and funded by a grant for $47,650 matched by$21,000 from Lake Oswego plus staff time. • Covered 600 acres bordered by Kruse Way on the north, I-5 to the west, and Boones Ferry Road. • Reviewed the timeline with the final recommendation by June 1995. • This study was separate from the 1-5/217 study but would take advantage of some of the modeling done for that study. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 16 September 27, 1994 48 • The intent was to develop a detailed design plan to make the local street system work better. • Having the I-5/217 project and the Waluga Triangle study at the same time would bring out issues and problems that would have to Le resolved in the alternatives presented. Mayor Schlenker commented on the importance of citizen involvement in both projects, and on the need for the Waluga study to keep up with the I-5/217 project because ODOT would not wait for Lake Oswego. Leon Stiles.Metro, reviewed the South/North High Capacity Transit Corridor Study. • The purpose of the study was to determine the light rail alternatives with an environmental impact study for further study. • They were not making a choice on whether or not to build a light rail. • They wanted to have a preferred alternative by the summer of 1996 to coincide with the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act by the federal government This project required major federal participation (they were asking for 50% funding). The project had to be moving along, be "real", and have local funding in the works in order for Congress to consider it. The bond on the November ballot was essential. • The Westside Light Rail project was number 2 in the nation out of only four projects for which Congress was providing funds. • Even though the build or no build decision for the North/South light rail wouldn't be made for two years, they needed to work on available funding sources now or the build option would not be available when the study was completed. • They expect that the November bond measure will pass, but if it doesn't, it would simply make things harder (but not impossible). • The local money portion was divided between the bond, State of Oregon sources, and local sources (including Clark County and Washington State). • The total cost was approximately $2.8 billion dollars divided equally between the federal government and local money. • Reviewed the terminus and alignment alternatives outlined in the briefing document. • Where the Willamette river crossing was in the south (one of the alignment alternatives) would determine which areas were serviced and which were not. • Reviewed which areas were serviced by crossing at the Sellwood Bridge, the Ross Island Bridge, the Carruthers bridge (Marquam bridge) and the Hawthorne Bridge. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 16 September 27, 1994 • 49 • Recommendations on the alternatives would be made to the Steering Group by the Project Management Team and a Citizen's Advisory Group independent of each other. • Reviewed the process that would be used (including public participation) to reach the final decision that would be made by the Metro Council and the C-tran Board of Directors. • The recommendation by the Project Management Team for the south river crossing was to move forward with the Ross Island Bridge crossing. They wanted to serve as large an area as possible, including PSU, River Place,North Macadam Redevelopment area, the residential area on Terwilliger, and southeast Portland. They chose the Ross Island bridge because it presented the best opportunity to serve both sides of the river as equitable as possible. Also the Ross Island bridge had faster travel times and higher ridership for the same cost as the other alternatives (the Sellwood bridge had the lowest ridership). It was important to demonstrate to Congress that this was an efficient system with high ridership for the same cost in order to compete with the rest of the country for the limited federal funds available. The project management team was trying to balance: - Helping the North Macadam Redevelopment area. - Reinforcing and serving the existing strong land use patterns on the east side of Portland. - The needs of Clackamas County residents for a fast, direct trip to downtown Portland. - High ridership to compete for federal funds. • He reviewed the public process. In the ensuing discussion, the following issues were raised or points made: • There was a projected difference of 1500 riders per day between the Sellwood and the Ross Island bridge crossings. • The project management team took all public input into account but did not rank it according to "favorable or unfavorable". • The cost of the Sellwood and the Ross Island bridge crossings was generally about the same. • They used the negative comments received to understand the negative impacts. • Based on the environmental impact study, what were the primary considerations that would put the project in one area versus another: • Noise,vibration and tracks were important in residential areas. • Traffic impacts and natural issues were other important considerations. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 16 September 27, 1994 5U • They tried to optimize the ridership,service and benefits of light rail and minimize the negative impacts, realizing that there needed to be a balance to find the best for the community as a whole. Mr. Stiles confirmed that the Citizen's Committee would welcome Lake Oswego's testimony (as it was new). He would find out if the Steering Group was still taking testimony. Mr. Bunch reviewed the remainder of the transportation planning projects: • Metro South Willamette River Process Study: • An 18 month study to evaluate traffic movement north/south from the Marquam Bridge to Oregon City and east/west across the Willamette River. • This study significantly impacted Lake Oswego because of Highway 43 and a potential new river crossing (either vehicle or commuter rail). • A required transportation system plan needed to implement the statewide planning rule: • Revisions would be to the Planning Commission and the Council by spring, with completion mandated by May 1996. • They had to revise Lake Oswego's Transportation System Plan to take into account the whole range of transportation alternatives. • Four local projects: • Council review of a draft RFP for a Highway 43 bypass study. • Planning Commission review of the Development Code looking at whether or not the right of way on listed streets was warranted. • The City Engineer was working with a consultant to develop a more efficient Kruse Way signalization plan. • Staff review with the County of the Kruse Way Traffic Management program to determine whether or not it was needed (it has not been implemented since 1990). North/South Rail Corridor Mayor Schlenker noted that Lake Oswego was one player out of eight in the Willamette Shore Trolley Consortium, and did not necessarily act independently. She stated that the Council had received two letters,one from Clackamas County and one from Milwaukee. She asked Don Stark, Special Attorney to Lake Oswego, to clarify the issues of finances and legalities as addressed in his letter. Mr. Stark reviewed his letter and made the following points: • Was it necessary to operate a trolley in order to preserve the right of way against the claims of the property owners? City Council Minutes Page 7 of 16 September 27, 1994 51 • No, an alternative was to declare an intent to preserve the line for rail purposes and to maintain the line. • There was a danger in losing the right of way of rail easements by non-rail use (i.e.,you could not maintain the right of way by claiming pedestrian or bicycle use -it was not a transportation easement but a rail easement). • The Rails To Trails Program was no longer a possibility because this line was no longer under ICC jurisdiction. In the ensuing discussion, the following issues were raised or comments made. • Condemnation proceedings could be used to secure the right of way, but it was a dangerous option because of what could happen with property values. • If trolley operation is stopped, they should have a strong statement about continued maintenance preservation of the line. • Train operation was the first thing looked at by the courts as a basis for abandonment of a line. • Operating the line is a guarantee of keeping the right of way, whereas anything else is subject to a judgment call as to whether or not there are enough facts to support that the city is maintaining the line. • Mr. Stark reviewed the location of rail easements on the line. • He stated that he did not know what the "legal nightmares" might be for the future of that line in terms of its potential transit,but noted that the easements were 60 feet wide and leave plenty of room for a rail transportation corridor. • Commuter rail is a possibility instead of light rail. • The routine maintenance needed to keep the line operational is not too expensive, but a major problem (such as a slide or trestle problem) would probably shut the line down because the consortium would not pay for it. • Mr. Stark concurred that the intent of the purchase of the line by the consortium was to maintain the right of way to keep the transportation corridor open. • It is better to keep the trolley running to avoid possible litigation. • Mr. Schmitz stated that Lake Oswego could renegotiate with the consortium on the second five year lease for more help in funding the costs of maintaining the line (including getting more than the current$50,000 that they receive from Portland for maintenance). • It was unlikely the City would be able to get any other member of the consortium to take responsibility for maintaining the line, as the line terminated in Lake Oswego, and Lake Oswego was thought to be the main beneficiary of the line. • Contributions from Metro and Tri-Met are possibilities, as they also have an interest in maintaining the line. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 16 September 27, 1994 5 ; • Mr.Condit noted that work needs to begin on the Portland contract now if Council wants to renegotiate for more maintenance funds when the contract is up for renewal. Paul Graham,4215 Fruitwood Court, argued for preservation of the right of way of the line, and made the following points: • He chaired the Jefferson Street Branch Line Future Use Task Force in 1988. The Task Force determined that it was feasible to have an interim use on the line. • The corridor is a tremendous resource for transportation and tourism,more so for Lake Oswego than for Portland. • The corridor brought business to Lake Oswego. • Those living along the line would like the line to be abandoned, so they could get the land for themselves. • Preserving and utilizing the corridor allowed Lake Oswego to develop a regional transportation plan and for Lake Oswego to be a hub in the plan, rather than a "backwater". • Cost was a factor,but it is important to remember not to allow an opportunity to be lost just because of cost. • Preserving the corridor is an investment in the proper development of the community and will help Lake Oswego to compete in the region and make the citizens' lives better. In responding to Council questions, Mr. Graham stated that he thought this was a very important priority for the City at this time. He understood the financial dilemma facing the community, but contended that this was important enough to find some way to fund it, even by tapping the other consortium members for dollars. He stated that, though the Friends group could be very actively involved, the staff also needed to be involved (despite the other transportation issues they had to deal with). Terry Woods, Lake Oswego attorney_ ,spoke in favor of preserving the corridor and made the following points: • Presented his credentials as an active Lake Oswego resident, a transportation lawyer, and an East End business owner. • Noted that he and his wife invested in the East End because of the redevelopment plans and because they believed that the City would maintain its options with regards to the transportation corridor. • He understood that tough decisions were required of elected officials these days, but contended that vision was required to make those decisions (citing the school district's unpopular and ill-afforded purchase of three properties 25 years ago which now held three needed elementary schools). City Council Minutes Page 9,of 16 September 27, 1994 JJ i J • The costly investment in the acquiring the Jefferson Street right of way should not be wasted. • Recommended that regular rail operations over the line be continued until such time as a final decision regarding the use of the line was made. • Noted that with the changes coming out of Washington, D.C., the rail abandonment issue could be treated differently the next time it was litigated. • The trolley has been a catalyst for economic development in the East End. • Transportation infrastructure was just as important as education and both needed to be funded. • Pointed out the State Emergency Board's High Speed Rail Study (Seattle to Eugene). • Stated his belief that Council should not give up the rail right of way until they knew what they were going to do with it. He was concerned that abandoning rail operations on that right of way meant they would not be able to re-initiate it. • Mr. Woods did not believe that any technological changes that might occur over the next 50 years (i.e., the information superhighway) would change the modes of transportation significantly. Mike Streiter,Canyon Drive, addressed the Council and made the following points: • He was a railroad engineering consultant and part of the design team on the Westside Light Rail. • Concurred with Mr. Stark's and Mr. Woods' comments. • Stated that from a technical standpoint, he thought that the City's investment in the line was more than the Council realized, since the cost of getting the line back would be tremendous. • A commuter rail could be constructed for $1 million to $2 million dollars a mile and completed in under a year, as a cost effective alternative to light rail. • The competition for the ISTEA funding is fierce, and Lake Oswego should not throw their grants out the window. • Suggested that the city arrange funds to keep the line going. • Strongly urged continuation of the trolley operation for future use of the line. Roger Hennagin, 3119 Douglas Circle, addressed the Council and made the following points: • Oregon City now regretted that they abandoned the trolley line 40 years ago. • Status as the "most desirable place to live in the region" was shifting from Lake Oswego to West Linn because of transportation considerations. • Keeping the trolley in operation is the cheapest way to keep the City's options open and to preserve what could be a very valuable resource in the future. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 16 September 27, 1994 54 1 Bill White.40 year resident, addressed the Council and made the following points: • Did not think the line was of any future use to the City,unless they ran a commuter train on it. • Suggested that Metro offer the line for sale by the end of the year to adjoining land owners for the price paid for it. • Suggested a monorail instead of light rail. • Suggested that Tri-met put a high speed ferry boat on the Willamette River. • Suggested that the City ask Metro to come out with a title report on the line within a month. Herald Campbell,398 Furnace St, addressed the Council and made the following points: • The development of Lake Oswego as the prime residential area in the Portland metro area began 80 years ago with the institution of the Southern Pacific electric line from Portland providing commuter service between Lake Oswego and Portland. • He did not see any possibility of a four lane highway along the Macadam alignment. • He thought it likely that a light rail would be instituted to run from Portland to Lake Oswego with a possible extension to Tualatin and Wilsonville. • He thought it would be tragic to lose the right of way to Portland. Catherine Matthias, 623 Sixth St, addressed the Council and made the following points: • She lived and owned a business in the East End. • Supported keeping the line open. • Noted an article in the Oregonian that reported that the information superhighway was lagging behind and that the number of people working out of their homes was below all projections because people needed daily contact with other people, and managers still had to come in to work. • Tri-met reported that the largest number of people moved in the transportation system in this area was on the weekends - recreational movement as opposed to commuter movement. • Concurred with asking Portland for more help, contending that they did have as much to gain as Lake Oswego from keeping the line open. • Suggested running the trolley until midnight. • Government money would get harder to get since they were giving it to cities building mass transit systems, not freeways. • Supported asking the other consortium members for help. City Council Minutes Page 11 of 16 September 27, 1994 55 Mayor Schlenker reviewed the work that has already occurred in keeping the line open: completion of the southern terminus,work on the north terminus and the Moody crossing. She noted that the other consortium members agreed on the necessity of the transportation corridor and were very interested in the line because everyone needed to reduce their vehicle miles travelled (in compliance with Goal 12), and this corridor was their only means of doing so. Lake Oswego has not been abandoned by the other consortium members but it was up to the "political will" of Lake Oswego to make this happen. She commented that the regional transportation planning was getting attention and funds from Washington D.C. Mayor Schlenker recessed the meeting. She reconvened the meeting, continuing the trolley discussion. Mr. Schmitz commented that the City had to make some decisions at this time regarding the trolley, one of which was going out for an RFP for a trolley operator. He said the Council needed to decide what the city's role for the trolley was, and whether or not the Council wished to reaffirm Resolution 93-04, the extension of the Lake Oswego rail. Councilor Holstein moved to reaffirm the Council policy (Resolution 94-03). Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. In the ensuing discussion, the following issues were raised. • Mr. Schmitz reviewed the budget for the current fiscal year ($161,142 budgeted with $199,838 revenues (including carryover from Portland from last year) with $72,000 in expenses). • The revenue came from Portland (c. $120,000) and the general fund match with the ISTEA funds ($80,000). • Portland gave$50,000 a year for maintenance. Lake Oswego has not spent it on routine maintenance, preferring to save it for large maintenance projects. • The$113,000 is all the money spent from the City's General Fund to purchase and maintain the line from 1987 to 1994. • Staff estimated the annual City outlay for maintenance of the line as$14,000 to $15,000,but noted that how much was spent on the maintenance of the line depended on how "maintenance of the line" was defined -was it routine maintenance ($50,000) or major repairs ($1 million plus)?. • The$50,000 a year received from Portland for line maintenance was negotiable. • Mr. Condit explained that because of the way the ownership and control of the City Council Minutes Page 12 of 16 September 27, 1994 56 line is set up, there was no simple answer as to who has responsibility for the line: • As the owner of the line, Portland is responsible for defending it against suits on abandonment or encroachment issues. • Lake Oswego leased the line from Portland and is responsible for paying for maintenance and removing blockages from the line. • Lake Oswego has passed on the operation of the trolley line to the operator. • Who would pay for major repairs (i.e., the tunnel caving in, rebuilding the trestle) would have to be decided, though it was unlikely that the consortium would fund those repairs. • Rehabilitation of the trolley line is estimated at$1.2 million dollars. • Councilor Puskas expressed concern about Lake Oswego putting their money into the line, given the financial responsibilities that the City will incur over the next five years, potentially jeopardizing a number of other projects. • Councilor Holstein commented that the answers to Councilor Puskas' questions didn't exist right now because there were too many unknown variables (from north/south light rail to the November election, etc.) but that the City faced a deadline of saying yes or no to Portland, and that he supported saying yes to Portland. • Staff stated that the$15,000 a year in management costs for the trolley could go up, especially when projects begin. • What were the actual capital improvement and management costs to the city for operating the trolley over the next five years? • The cost to the City depends on whether or not they can get grants to fund the needed improvements. • The local share would be approximately $60,000 (plus administrative costs). Lake Oswego could try to get help from the other consortium members to pay the local share. • Councilor Puskas expressed concern about putting the City in a financially vulnerable position over the long term: _ • Councilor Holstein noted that future City Councils or Budget Committees are not locked into anything by the Council's decision, but that they had to keep things moving. • Mr. Condit stated that the current trolley agreement with Portland and the operator allows Lake Oswego to "pull the plug" at least once per year. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 16 September 27, 1994 57 Mayor Schlenker spoke to the issue of the Portland agreement and made the following points: • For political purposes, it behooved the City to talk further with Portland Commissioner Blumenauer. • Discussions should include the issues surrounding the partnership and participation between Portland and Lake Oswego,additional support from Portland, and Portland's participation in the north extension. • She requested analysis of what it actually costs to maintain the line in order to determine whether or not it is costing the City more than$50,000 a year. Mayor Schlenker moved for conceptual approval of continuing an agreement with Portland. But, going back to the table to ascertain what the maintenance costs actually are; to try to get additional commitment for maintenance of the line if the costs exceed the$50,000 that the City is currently receiving from Portland; and, to obtain Portland's aid and participation in the completion of the north extension. Councilor Holstein seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. Councilor Holstein moved to go out for an RFP. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. Councilor Anderson asked for clarification on the RFP: Mayor Schlenker commented on the need for a fair and objective RFP with well guided criteria to get the most sound operator possible for the line. Councilor Holstein commented that the RFI' would be different for a profit operator than for a non-profit operator. Mr. Condit pointed out that the RFP was contingent upon the new agreement the City reached with Portland. The City needed to move on the RFP now in order to make a selection at the appropriate time. An RFP served as notice that the City was serious about operating the trolley. • Councilor Klammer stated that he supported the trolley but noted that no one would be able to run it effectively without the northern extension. Councilor Holstein accepted a friendly amendment from Councilor Anderson and the motion read as follows: to go out for an RFP, contingent upon finalizing the Portland agreement. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson,Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. City Council Minutes Page 14 of 16 September 27, 1994 58 Amp Councilor Holstein moved to pay for the acquisition and construction projects utilizing the ISTEA I grant monies at this time. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. Councilor Puskas asked if the City had to pay back the ISTEA funds if they were not utilized. Mr. Condit explained that the City had to build the facilities they promised to build as part of the grant but that did not mean they had to continue the operation of the trolley. He noted that, as the City did have a limited period of time in which they had to commit those funds, they needed to start the process now. According to the terms of the grant, the money must be used for the trolley, right of way, or construction of the trolley barn. The terms were not more specific than that, other than the money had to be used on the southern section. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. The Council agreed by consensus to continue Option 5 to another meeting. Councilor Holstein moved to continue to seek federal and state funding for the Trolley and continue requesting the consortium to participate in funding. Mayor Schlenker seconded the motion. Councilor Anderson commented that he believed the commentary in the Issues and Options paper put Lake Oswego in a vulnerable position regarding funding for capital improvements and/or maintenance. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Schlenker, Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein and Puskas voting in favor. Mayor Schlenker asked for the motion on Option 2 to be re-read for staff explanation and possible Council reconsideration. Kris Hitchcock,City Recorder, read the motion. Mr. Condit stated that he understood the motion to mean that Council wanted to continue the agreement with Portland and renegotiate issues, but that it did not commit them to any particular terms. He advised the Council that they could not go into a negotiating session saying that they would automatically accept the bottom line if they couldn't get what they wanted. They could not make a final decision on an agreement until the actual language was in front of them. City Council Minutes Page 15 of 16 September 27, 1994 59 Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager, noted that increasing participation by the members of the consortium was an issue in which Council was interested in pursuing. Mayor Schlenker reiterated the need to identify the cost of the maintenance. Mr. Condit stated that two negotiating points were: 1) determining the real maintenance costs, and (if they were more than $50,000), asking Portland for more money; and 2) trying to get some commitments from Portland regarding the north extension. XI. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kristi Hitchcock,City Recorder APPROVED BY COUNCIL: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 16 of 16 September 27, 1994 60 III - C - 3 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: October 10, 1994 meeting minutes ISSUE: Should the City Council approve the October 10, 1994 minutes as written? OPTIONS: 1. Approve minutes. 2. Do not approve minutes. 3. Pull from Consent and make changes. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager FISCAL IMPACT: $ N/A NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): N/A BUDGETED? ACCOUNT# ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation October 10, 1994 meeting minutes. fulfill an identified City Council goal,past or present? N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X M:\COUNC 71.\AGCKM I N.I70C 61 City of Lake Oswego City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Briefing Minutes October 10, 1994 Mayor Schlenker called the October 10, 1994 Lake Oswego City Council and Redevelopment Agency agenda briefing meeting to order at 7:34 a.m. Present were Mayor Schlenker and Councilors Anderson, Chrisman,Holstein and Klammer. Staff present were City Manager, Douglas J. Schmitz, and Assistant City Manager,Tom Coffee. Patt Thomas, a citizen, was also present. Councilor Puskas arrived at 7:35 a.m. The Redevelopment Agency reviewed the LORA agenda for October 11, and discussed the following items: 1. LORA meeting to start at 5:00 p.m. on October 11. 2. Metro 2040: reviewed schedule; reviewed maps; Tom Coffee to draft the City's position for October 18 meeting. 3. Aesthetic ordinance - draft similar to Tigards. Other items discussed by the Council at the meeting were: 1. Councilor Anderson will not be available on third Mondays. An Executive Session commenced at 8:37 a.m. and was held pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e), Real Property. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 27 Dougisa J. Schmitz, CvManager APPROVED BY COUNCIL: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor 63 III - C - 4 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: October 13, 1994 meeting minutes ISSUE: Should the City Council approve the October 13, 1994 minutes as written? OPTIONS: 1. Approve minutes. 2. Do not approve minutes. 3. Pull from Consent and make changes. RECOMMENDATION: Option #1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager FISCAL IMPACT: $ N/A I NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): N/A BUDGETED? ACCOUNT# ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation October 13, 1994 meeting minutes. fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present? N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X M CL)UNCIL\AGCKM[NIX X' 6 J l CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Metro 2040 Special Joint Meeting with West Linn Thursday, October 13, 1994 City Councilor Heather Chrisman called the briefing to order at 7:05 p.m. Attendance was as follows: Lake Oswego City Council: Councilor Chrisman, Anderson (7:37) West Linn City Council; Mayor Jill Thorn, Councilor Ted Kyle (7:40) Metro Council; John Kvistad Mike Gates (7:30) Richard Devlin (8:05) Metro Staff John Fregonese, Growth Management Manager Lake Oswego Staff_ Doug Schmitz, City Manager Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager Ron Bunch, Senior Planner Kris Hitchcock, City Recorder Citizens (Most) Patt Thomas Marilyn Brock Rebecca Thompson Ron Peterson Norma Peterson Richard Noble Ron Hanson Gay Graham Laurie James Sherry Finnigan Heidi Allen Meryl Haber Mr. Kvistad gave the background of the Metro 2040 plan. Mr. Fregonese slowed slides, giving an overview of the process, and how the Recommended Alternative was obtained. West Linn Mayor Thorne requested that Metro consider placing property near Rosemont and Stafford Roads in the Urban Reserve. She explained that the school district is considering this property for a future school site, and would prefer the school to be inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Mayor Thorne said that the City of West Linn is in favor of the Metro Council making a decision on the Recommended Alternative on December 8. She noted that West Linn supports the plan for the Stafford Triangle Area. 67 Lake Oswego Councilor Chrisman emphasized that Lake Oswego does not wish the Urban Growth Boundary expanded at all. Metro answered questions raised by citizens in attendance. Councilor Chrisman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. An informal question and answer period followed. Respectfully Submitted, Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder G `; III - C - 5 11/01/94 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: October 4, 1994 meeting minutes ISSUE: Should the City Council approve the October 4, 1994 minutes as written? OPTIONS: 1. Approve minutes. 2. Do not approve minutes. 3. Pull from Consent and make changes. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager FISCAL IMPACT: $ N/A NOTICED Date(s): N/A EXPENDITURE: $ REVENUE: $ PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Date(s): N/A BUDGETED? ACCOUNT# ATTACHMENTS: Would the adoption or implementation October 4, 1994 meeting minutes. fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present? N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's policy manual? Yes No X M:\COUNCIL\AGCKM IN.rX)C 69 •7n I CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO October 4, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES STUDY SESSION Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the study session of the City Council to order at 5:30 p.m. on October 4, 1994 in the City Council Chambers. Councilors Anderson, Chrisrnan, Klammer, Holstein, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker were present. Staff present included Doug Schmitz, City Manager;Jeff Condit, City Attorney; Kris Hitchcock, City Recorder; Mike Henley, Parks & Recreation Director; Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager;Jill Grenda, Park & Recreation; and Ron Bunch, Senior Planner. Others present included Elaine Hallmark, Confluence Northwest; Karl Rhode, Lake Oswego Neighborhood Association Coalition; Pat Collmeyer, Historic Review Commission; Sally Donovan, Consultant;Jack Hoffman, Team Sports Chair and Soccer Club President; Hank Sylvester, Adult Community Center;Tansy Sylvester, Oswego Heritage Council; Debbie Craig, Parks &Recreation Advisory Board. III. STUDY SESSION A. Luscher Farm briefing Mike Henley Park& Recreation Director, reviewed the process used to arrive at the consensus report agreeing on the amount of acreage that should be designated as an historic overlay and identifying an appropriate mix of land uses for the total site. He noted that the addition of the Taylor property increased the total acreage from 41.7 acres to 57.43 acres. Mr. Henley reviewed the background of the Luscher Farm acquisition: • The Council formally requested the County Historic Review Board to designate 6.6 acres as historic, although the property barely qualified as an historic resource in the County's Resource Inventory, and the property was purchased for active recreation as the primary use with the 1990 park bond; • He noted that when the County HRB recommended that the entire 41.7 acres be designated historic(with a second choice of 23 acres), the City successfully argued to continue the land use hearing until such time as the City had studied the site to determine its best recreational uses. Mr. Henley summarized the Luscher Farm master planning process: • Confluence Northwest was retained to facilitate a consensus process of all the stakeholders; • The group quickly saw the need to plan Luscher Farm to take a broad range of active and passive recreation and historic uses; • Though community surveys indicated a strong preference for passive recreation uses, community sports programs have experienced so much growth in the past 13 years that there no longer was sufficient space available to meet the needs; • The group recommended enhancement of the small spring identified in the northwest portion of the site and believed to be the headwaters of Lost Dog Creek; • He commended the Stakeholders Group for their willingness to compromise for the greater good. Recommendations from the process were as follows: City Council Minutes Page 1 of 15 October 4, 1994 71 • That the Council send the report back to the Parks&Recreation Advisory Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Historic Review Commission for full deliberation and recommendation back to the Council; • That, after finalizing the study, the Council forward the acreage designation to the Clackamas County Commissioners who would make the final decision after land use hearings; • Considering naming the entire park site as part of the adopted city policies,and as funds were budgeted to master plan the park, consideration should be given to that process. Mr. Henley noted that funds to develop Luscher Farm have not been identified and Mr. Luscher was still living on the site. Councilor Puskas noted that one of the reasons the Council recommended 6.6 acres was because they needed the flexibility to site park uses. She requested that the report de- emphasize the low rating of the historic significance of the property as a primary reason Council chose 6.6 acres, because that had not been a strong point in discussion. Mr. Condit explained that the immediate issue was how much acreage would the County designate as "historic";the City had to do something, or the County would do it for them. A secondary issue was the zoning. The consultant recommended that the City pursue a County zone change to"open space management" on the entire site, with an historic overlay on the designated historic portion. Mr. Henley noted that, under the current EFU-20 zone, all the proposed uses were conditional and would require going through the County process each time; under an open space management zone, they would only have to go through the County process once. Elaine Hallmark.Confluence Northwest,explained that she oversaw the consensus process. She noted that small changes were made to two sections of the report at the Stakeholders Group final meeting last week. She reviewed the process used to reach consensus. Sally Donovan. Historic Preservation Consultants,explained the justification for the boundaries: • They used the National Park Service guidelines for evaluating rural landscapes as their framework; • They identified the work that the county had already done in finding that the property was significant and in assessing its historic integrity(which was strong); • In selecting the boundaries, they looked at the historic legal boundaries, natural features and long standing vegetation; • They found that the 23 acres designated historic was justifiable in terms of the criteria in the National Register of Historic Places guidelines. In the ensuing discussion,the following issues were raised or comments made: • How did the group get from the 6.6 acres recommended by Council to 23 acres? • They looked at various amounts of acreage,considering the context of the farm to be important; • Ms. Donovan directed attention to an information chart on historic farms in Oregon and Washington, noting that the amount of acreage was important; • Another factor in weighing the alternatives was looking at the natural site in terms of contours. • Was any consideration given to the cost of the city maintaining this property? City Council Minutes Page 2 of 15 October 4, 1994 7? Imagionip • Though cost was brought up,the group did not deal with it,as that wasn't their purpose. • The City needed to know what the cost factor would be before they went to the County. • If the City went after an open space management designation on the Luscher Farm property, would such a designation set a pattern in the area and eventually spread to the adjacent private properties? • Mr. Condit stated that,as the applicant, Lake Oswego could only request a zone change on the property it owned, and any change would not effect surrounding private property. Pat Collmeyer reviewed the recommendation to designate 23 acres with an historic landmark overlay zone. Their reasons included the historic boundaries, the natural setting, and the importance of maintaining the views. They wanted passive recreation uses in the hilly area as part of maintaining the rural character of a farm. They did not seriously consider an active farm, looking more at a farming garden type of activity. She emphasized that, in justifying a property for historic designation, the context and the need to maintain the historic configuration were important. Tonsy Sylvester reviewed the transition zone and the use of passive recreation activities as a buffer between the active uses and the farm. Mr. Henley explained that Henry Kronowski of the State Historic Preservation Office recommended an historic overlay zone because they could do whatever they wanted within that zone,as long as it did not interfere with the historic integrity of the site. He noted that there were a wide range of passive recreation activities that could fit the County's conditional use for the historic site. Mr. Henley pointed out that parking was a big issue, but said it was too early in the process to know what they would do about it. John Hoffman reviewed the active recreation portion of the site. He commented that the youth sports and activities were a major reason why people moved to Lake Oswego. He stated that he agreed to the 23 acre historic designation solely as a compromise(preferring the 6.6 acre) with these assumptions: 1)in the next two to five years, youth sports and organizations would have greater access and use of existing school fields;2)certain existing fields would be renovated; and, 3)serious consideration would be given to tieing Lakeridge High School fields and Luscher Farm together as a single complex. In response to a question from Councilor Anderson, Mr. Hoffman stated that multi use fields were successful in Lake Oswego, and that a field complex to accommodate adult softball, Little League baseball and soccer is needed. He thought that they could get four baseball and soccer fields in the overlay. Mr. Henley commented that, in designing this, they needed to consolidate an active sports core on the least amount of land possible and buffer it with less intense uses. In response to a question from Councilor Puskas,Mr. Hoffman agreed that safety on the fields was a concern but stated that overuse was also a concern. Mr. Henley commented that the fields needed to be managed as a finite resource. Mayor Schlenker noted concern about what the active fields would look like, (i.e., would lighting disturbthe rural character). Mr. Henley stated that the group had felt that their charge was to define areas for active and passive recreational sports and that amenities should be discussed in the master plan process. Mr. Condit noted that the public would have input City Council Minutes Page 3 of 15 October 4, 1994 7 3 during that process. Mayor Schlenker requested that people get involved early in the process so that issues could be resolved before the final hearing. Debbie Craig commented that this was a compromise between two groups who had held different understandings of why the property was purchased. The historic group thought that the land had been purchased for an historic farm, and the other side thought it had been purchased for active sports. The group did not come to any conclusion on how a farm would be financed and made no recommendation on a farm. The group realized that there would have to be a financial package if this was going to happen. They felt that the compromise they came up will have appeal to the whole community, and that the voters would support the variety of uses suggested. She stated that a group goal was to serve the whole community She concurred with Mr. Hotl'man's point about viewing the area as a complex rather than as Lakeridge High and Luscher Farm. She agreed that parking was an issue, noting that both the high school and the church did have some parking. Councilor Holstein reported that the Council subcommittee(himself and Councilor Chrisman) recommended that the Council send this back to the Park &Recreation Advisory Board, Natural Resource Advisory Board and Historic Review Commission, looking in particular at the financial questions. They also recommended that the City analyze the outbuildings to see what needed to be done with them to fit them into the Capital Improvement Plan if necessar r. B. Metro Greenspaces Doug Schmitz.City Manager,reviewed that Metro has placed on the March 1995 ballot a measure seeking authorization for bonds for 54 regional parks with money set aside for local share projects;Lake Oswego's allocation was estimated at$725,000. He presented the list of recommended projects developed by the Park &Recreation Advisory Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board, noting that they could list projects beyond the $725,000 in case they were unsuccessful in obtaining any one in particular. Andy Harris, Planning Staff, reviewed the list. Councilor Holstein expressed concern at discussing this outside of Executive Session. The Council agreed to discuss the matter further in Executive Session. IV. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the study session at 6:55 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Mayor Alice L. Schlenker called the regular City Council meeting of October 4, 1994 to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker were present. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL 1., Letter of resignation by Jamie Ellgen from the Committee for Citizen Involvement. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 15 October 4, 1994 74 ACTION: Accept resignation with regret. 2. Letter of resignation by Cinthia Ziel from the Committee for Citizen Involvement. ACTION: Accept resignation with regret. B. REPORTS 1. Acceptance of a dedication of right-of-way and three drainage easements by the City Manager on behalf of the City: Dedication of right of way: Mreen Foothills Road; Storni Drainage ldasements: Knaus, Tax Map 21E 8CD,Tax Lot 1700, Lake Grove Swim Park; Knaus,Tax Map 21E 17, Part of Tax Lot 100, Lake Haven Drive: Mreen,Tax Map 21E 2CB,Tax Lot 1500 ACTION: Acknowledge City Manager's acceptance. 2. Award of bid for construction of a sidewalk along McVey. ACTION: Award bid to Berning Construction for$29,715.00 3. Award bid for the first phase of Waluga Park. Pulled from Consent Agenda, see Item V. 4. September 20, 1994 Special Election results for Measure 3-24, Street Bonds, and Measure 3-25,Real Estate Transfer Tax. Pulled from Consent Agenda, see Item V. C. ORDINANCES second Reading by Title Only and Enactment Ordinance 2107, a general ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego amending LOC Chapter 12(Administration,to reflect the publication date of the Consumer Price Index(CI). ACTION: Adopt ordinance. D. RESOLUTIONS 1. 94-55, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing the Mayor, City Manager,and Fire Chief to sign on behalf of the City the Mutual Assistance Agreement for Fire Protection with the City of Portland. ACTION: Adopt resolution. 2. 94-56, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego supporting an Arts Endowment Foundation. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 15 October 4, 1994 75 AimummimmismEms ACTION: Adopt resolution. E. REPORTS OF BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Board update on implementation of traffic management devices approved by the City Council September 20, 1994. ACTION: Continue to 10/18/94. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 13, 1994, special joint meeting with the City of Tigard. ACTION: Approve minutes as written. Mayor Schlenker moved for the Consent Agenda,pulling Items B3 and 84. Councilor Holstein seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors Anderson,Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein,Puskas and Mayor Schlenker voting in favor. END CONSENT AGENDA IV. PRESENTATIONS/RECOGNITION A. Proclamation of the month of October as National Arts & Humanities Month. Mayor Schlenker proclaimed October as "National Arts& Humanities Month." B. Recognition of Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder, for being named 1994 Recorder of the Year by the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders. This item was continued to the second Tuesday of the month. C. Proclamation of 10/94-10/95 as Year of the Celebration of the United Nations. Mayor Schlenker read the proclamation declaring 10/94-10/95 as"Year of the Celebration of the United Nations. V. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA HI-B-3 from award bid for the first phase of Waluga Park. Councilor Anderson moved to award the bid for the first phase of Waluga Park to CEMS, Inc.for a cost not to exceed $53,457.00. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker voting in favor. III-8-4 September 20, 1994 Special Election results for Measure 3-24, Street Bonds, and Measure 3-25, Real Estate Transfer Tax. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 October 4, 1994 76 Mayor Schlenker moved to accept the final results of the September 20, 1994 election for Measure 3-24 (Street Bonds) and Measure 3-25 (Real Estate Transfer Tax)from Multnomah,Washington and Clackamas Counties. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker voting in favor. Mayor Schlenker read Ordinance 2107 for Second Reading by Title Only and Enactment. VI. CITIZEN COMMENT Patricia Perett. Lake Grove, presented a notice and request for action to the Council regarding the intersection of Quarry and Oakridge Roads in Lake Grove. She expressed concern about the safety hazard posed by this blind intersection,citing recent accidents as cause for concern. She stated that she had heard that appropriate traffic control devices might be implemented as a result of the residential construction scheduled for this area but did not know if any plans had been made to impr+ve the intersection. VI. PUBLIC HEARING AP 94-08, an appeal of a decision by the Development Review Commission to approve PD 5- 93NAR 23-93(a-b), a 24-lot single-family planned development located at the northern end of Kruse Oaks Blvd., adjacent to the parking lot for the Temple. Mayor Schlenker noted that this hearing was quasi-judicial and on the record. Hamid Pishvaie, Senior Planner,presented the staff report and made the following points: • The two components of this project were an application for a 24 lot planned development with lots ranging from 7000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, and an application for a variance to the subdivision ordinance(limiting the length of the culdesac to 1000 feet)to increase the length to approximately 1225 feet. • A discrepancy was discovered between a development standard of a required minimum distance of 25 feet for a buffer and the Comprehensive Plan; • The City Attorney concurred that the discrepancy existed and that the Comprehensive Plan prevailed, noting that the 25 feet could be used as a guide to determine the width of the buffer zone; • The applicant was directed to develop a modified site plan to respond to the request from the neighbors to the north for a 25 foot conservation easement along Lots 4-12 to protect their privacy; • Staff agreed with the conservation easement,but did not recommend that it come at the expense of the 25 foot stream corridor buffer recommended behind Lots 13-24; • The applicant realigned the Temple View street southward to accommodate the conservation easement and also eliminated the 25 foot stream corridor buffer, claiming that it was not needed because the ravine itself was deep and wide enough to provide the necessary buffering; • In reviewing this plan, staff discovered the Fishman Environmental Services report- an inventory and analysis of the natural resources in the City(including stream corridors)which supported staffs recommendation for a buffer from the top of the bank; City Council Minutes Page 7 of 15 October 4, 1994 77 • Reviewed the portions of the Fishman report in the record: • Ball Creek had a high wildlife habitat value(93 out of 100 points), making it second only to Bryant Creek; • The report recommended a 50 foot buffer zone from the top of the bank, and maintenance of the forested area north of the stream to protect the integrity and water quality of the stream; • Staff thought that a 50 foot buffer was too restrictive and recommended a 25 foot buffer; • Upon analysis, staff concluded that lots 13-24 were buildable and viable lots,even with addition of the 25 foot buffer zone; • The DRC agreed with the applicant that the Ball Creek ravine was sufficient in itself to provide the necessary protection to the creek. Andy Harris presented the video he shot of the stream corridor on July 22. Mr. Pishvaie stated that staff recommended Council approve the appeal and modify the DRC's decision by adopting the staff recommendations(as listed in the staff memo dated 7/29/94). Staff was not recommending elimination of the 25 foot conservation easement in the north. Mayor Schlenker requested clarification on the map of the staffs recommendations. She said her understanding was that staff was agreeing to the 25 foot conservation easement along the north property line(as requested by the neighbors). Temple View Court would be realigned southward anywhere from 0 to 17 feet at the discretion of the applicant. The properties in the south would have a 25 foot buffer zone between their rear lot line and the stream corridor. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the conservation easement on lots 4-12 would be part of the lot itself. The conservation easement(p. 19)only restricted the removal of trees;the property owner could put up a fence or landscaping in if he wanted to. Mr. Condit explained that conservation easements were only as restrictive as they were set up to be. Some restricted any kind of development whereas others simply restricted something specific, such as trees. The property owners in the north would have full use of their property within that 25 foot conservation easement except that they could not cut down any trees. Mayor Schlenker asked the Council to declare any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Councilor Klammer stated that he drove to the site, but could not find it. Mayor Schlenker stated that she also drove to the site. No other Councilors declared ex parte contacts. Mayor Schlenker opened the hearing to public testimony. APPELLANTS Robert Barton. President of Westlake Homeowner's Assn. 5650 Victoria Court, testified and made the following points: • Westlake Homeowners Assn supported the Westwood Homeowners Assn's concerns about the buffer they wanted. • No property in Westlake would be affected by the Council's decision. • They were here because they were concerned about this stream corridor as a pristine corridor. • They supported staffs original recommendation on the property. • They have raised two procedural and one substantive issue. • Reviewed the procedural error that occurred at the DRC hearing. An attorney, Mr.Josselson, presented a solution during the DRC's deliberations. The DRC essentially accepted that solution;however, the public did not have a chance to comment on it, as it had not been on the City Council Minutes Page 8 of 15 October 4, 1994 78 table during public testimony. The Lake Oswego Code required public input on any new evidence. • Pointed out staff concurred that there was a procedural error. • Asked for the opportunity to present new evidence, specifically the portions of the Fishman report that explained the rationale behind the 50 foot buffer zone recommended for this stream corridor. • Suggested that Council follow the original staff recommendation which protected the interests of the Westwood Homeowners Association to the north, and also protected the corridor by allowing a 25 foot buffer outside the property lines. • They felt the buffer was important because of the difficulty in enforcing conservation easements. • A buffer zone gave the stream corridor a better chance to survive. • The second procedural error was not raised at the DRC hearing because they had not know about it. He outlined the possible error. Mr. Oldham, a DRC member, was in a business partnership with Mr. Bunick's wife, Mary Jo Avery. Mr. Barton contended that this was an ex parte contact which Mr. Oldham should have declared. • The substantive issue was the preservation of the stream corridor while allowing reasonable development. • The appellants asked Council to return to the original plan (the second recommendation in the staff report)requiring a 25 foot conservation easement to the north and a 25 foot,buffer zone to the south, outside of the property line. Mr. Barton asked to submit a document on the second procedural error into the record. Mr. Condit ruled that it was not part of the official hearing record, as it was not part of the original DRC record. TIiOSE IN FAVOR Ray_Sahlberg. 149..0 rden_Lahe, testified and made the following points: • They were not here tonight to deny Mr. Bunick or the church the right, to develop their property. • They were not here tonight to deny their neighbors their request for a conservation easement; however, they didn't want to see a conservation easement at the expense of the Ball Creek stream corridor by reducing the buffer to 10 feet. • The stream corridor was pristine and provided storm water drainage and significant wild habitat value that was considered one of the most valuable in the City. This stream corridor scored 93 out of 100 in-the Fishman Environmental Services Report with Bryant Creek scoring 96. • Expressed concern that one of the DRC members did not understand why there was a 50 foot buffer recommended by the Fishman report, and speculated that other sections of the report might contain the rationale for that recommendation; • Reviewed the Comprehensive Plan General Policy 2 on protection of stream corridors. APPLICANT Nick Bunick, 1575 SW View Lake Court, testified and made the following points: • Emphasized the depth of the ravine, noting that it was high enough to protect the stream. • Discovered that there was no requirement in the City that there had to be a 25 foot buffer along the ravine. • The Comprehensive Plan required consideration of all elements involved to justify any buffer at all. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 15 October 4, 1994 7 !1 • When he met with the neighbors to the north, he suggested moving the road south 15 feet (creating larger lots)and a creating a 25 foot conservation easement in the north. • They have already reduced the number of lots from 44 to 24 for bigger lots and more privacy. • They also created a 25 foot conservation easement across the rear of the backyards to the south (Plan B). • They agreed to a condition of the DRC to start the houses within 20 feet of the front property line. • There was no opposition at the first hearing; the 35 to 40 people present totally supported what the DRC approved. They were shocked to discover that the only person who opposed the project was the City Planner. • There were two opponents at the second hearing, Mr. Sahlberg and Erin Meadors, neither of whom lived near the property. • The 13 lots already developed on the south that bordered on the creek did not have a buffer or a conservation easement,and therefore the owners did not oppose his application. • Moving the road down 15 feet eliminated the need for asking the DRC to allow 10 foot backyards on the south side. • He had not been aware that the Fishman report was going to be introduced into evidence at the last hearing. • Reviewed the categories and gradings of the Fishman report in evaluating habitat: • Agreed that the slope was stable and the condition undisturbed because the water never got over 12 inches high, and therefore the 42 foot slope was adequate protection; • In his visits to the site, he has not seen the wildlife that was supposed to inhabit the corridor; • The report writer criticized the development of Westlake north of the creek, and stated that this area was too small to develop without severely impacting the creek; • Contended that this report did not have any relevance. • Quoted the Comprehensive Plan policy"... has to be aware that you neither require an optimum or minimum protection distance to be applied in all situations". • Reviewed the factors to be considered in making a case by case determination: • The potential for erosion hazard did not exist because the creek only got 12 inches high out of 42 feet; • The width and velocity of the stream did not apply because there was no velocity of the stream, since most of the year it was dry; • The other criteria supported the fact that it was not necessary to penalize them. • Taking away the 25 feet would be a significant hardship,because it would reduce the backyards to 10 feet,costing them approximately a quarter of a million dollars on the value of the land. Mayor Schlenker asked Mr. Bunick to go to the map and point out which lots would have 10 foot back yards(Lots 13, 14, 15, 23, 24 and 1). She asked how Lot 13 would have 10 feet in the back yard. Mr. Bunick said that the last 25 feet would be a buffer with a �)foot setback in the front in Plan A. Mayor Schlenker noted that there were 86 feet between the front and back of the property line where the 25 foot buffer began. Mr. Condit clarified that the property line with a 25 foot conservation easement(as part of the lot) was measured from the top of the bank of the stream corridor(Plan A). The property line with a 25 foot buffer(not part of the property)was measured from the end of the buffer zone(Plan B), thus reducing the building envelope on the lot. In Plan B,there are 10 feet between the back of the building envelope and the back lot line;however, the applicant was not required to build a house that covered the entire building area. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15 October 4, 1994 8U Mayor Schlenker asked how large a home could be placed on the lot.. Mr. Bunick stated that a house could not exceed a 43 foot depth. He commented that they increased the lot size because this was one of the last properties in Lake Oswego on which higher priced homes could be built. Jim Bean. 1900 Davis Road.Oregon City, representative of the property owner, the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, testified and made the following points: • At the first hearing before the DRC,there was no opposition. • Expressed concern at their perception that staff took an adversarial position on this application, rather than simply representing the interests of the city and presenting the city's position during the appeal process. • The city's position at the moment was for approval of the application. • It was important to have good size lots in the development in order get a good return on the sale of the properties. • They had tried to design the development to balance the desire for an appropriate return for the land and produce a good development. • Confirmed that they had understood that the city required a 25 foot setback, but changed the plan when it was discovered that a buffer zone was not in fact required by the Code. • Stream banks were not identified in the Code, and he did not think they wore intended to be at the top of a canyon created 13,000 years ago. • They could argue that less than 25 feet was appropriate, given the distance from the actual stream. • The video could not be a basis for a decision as it did not identify the distances involved. • Contended that staff wanted to adjust the lot sizes(which was not an appropriate basis for a decision). • Urged the Council to affirm the DRC's decision. Terry Gerke, 5932 Suncreek Drive, representing the Westwood Homeowners Assn, testified and made the following points: • Requested all members of the Westwood Homeowners Assn present stand, noting that nine people stood. • Reviewed the process they went through to reach an agreement with Mr. Bunick to address the concerns they had regarding encroachment on their properties by this latest development. That agreement was substantially embodied in the development plat approved by the DRC. • Contended that City staff deliberately frustrated the agreement between the Association and Mr. Bunick by pushing their own agenda(which exceeded the City's authority under law). Staff was supposed to insure that the land use laws and ordinances were not violated. • It was the opinion of both Mr. Bunick's attorney and the Association's attorney that staff had an agenda it was determined to push, regardless of the facts or the law. • Contended that, despite the improper influence of staff, the DRC, Mr. Bunick and the Association reached an agreement to move the subdivision 15 feet south of the Association's boundary and to move the opposite side of the development approximately the same distance to the edge of the bluff. • Contended that staff opposed this agreement, ignoring the Comprehensive Plan provisions and favoring the inapplicable provision of the zoning ordinance. • Stated his admiration of Mr. Bunick for sticking to the agreement made with the Association, despite pressure to change it. Councilor Anderson asked what the supposed city agenda was. Mr. Gerke stated that they thought that staff did not want to go down to defeat on this item. He said that, in his opinion the city had gone overboard, and that the question that needed to be answered was which ruled - the City Council Minutes Page 11 of 15 October 4, 1994 81 Comprehensive Plan or the city ordinances. He commented that the opposition did not appear until the second hearing,and that staff took a tougher approach to Mr. Bunick's modified site plan. Mr. Gerke confirmed that the Council's decision did not affect the Westwood Homeowners Association as it did not change the easement on the north. However, they supported Mr. Bunick's right to have larger lots. Jim Hansen.Vice Chair of the Oak Creek Neighborhood Association, asked to speak. However, there was no record of any previous testimony from Oak Creek in the record received from the DRC. The City Attorney ruled that therefore,Oak Creek could not testify. THOSE NEITHER IN FAVOR NOR OPPOSED Ruth Pennington. 2121 Wembley Park Road,Natural Resources Advisory Board(NRAB) representative,testified and made the following points: • The Fishman report was a good document, but needed to be looked at in comparison with all the other evaluations. • In developing the Comprehensive Plan policy on stream corridor buffers, NRAB felt it was unfair to stipulate a specific footage. • They felt that each case should be reviewed on its own merits,and that there were enough competent people around to make that determination appropriately. • Though the conservation easements were an excellent way of protecting properties, they were difficult to enforce because homeowners did not understand them. • NRAB preferred a buffer zone on the south side to protect the stream corridor. REBUTTAL Mr. Barton made the following points: • According to the minutes of the August 1 DRC meeting(p.4), Mr. Harris testified that the stream did carry quite a bit of water. • The Westlake lots did have a 25 foot buffer, citing Mr. Harris'July 22, 1994 memo to Mr. Pishvaie(Exhibit 52). • The Fishman report was written by people who were trying to realistically evaluate the stream corridors, • Exhibit 54 stated why this corridor was a pristine stream. • The attacks on staff were misdirected-they merely did their job. • The suggestion that staff exerted undue influence wasn't borne out by the result, since the DRC did not approve their recommendations. • If the DRC adopted the plan upon which Mr. Bunick and the Westwood Homeowners Association had agreed prior to the hearings, why did Mr. Josselson wait until the DRC was in deliberations to propose the solution that was ultimately accepted? • The August 1 minutes demonstrated that Westlake did oppose what was ultimately accepted but they did not have the opportunity to state tjeir opposition at the hearing because that solution was not on the table during the public testimony. • Recommended that Council adopt the second staff recommendation. If that was not Council's inclination, they requested that this be remanded to the DRC on the grounds of the procedural errors. Mayor Schlenker closed the hearing to public testimony. She then recessed the meeting for a five minute break at 9:17 p.m. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 15 October 4, 1994 82 COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF 1. Where was the Fishman report? Mr. Pishvaie explained that this report was several hundred pages long, and that he had selected those portions that were applicable to this application for inclusion in the record. 2. Was it accurate that there was a 25 foot stream corridor buffer on all Westlake developments on the south side of the ravine? Mr. Pishvaie stated that a 25 foot stream corridor buffer(measured from the top of the bank outward)has been applied consistently since 1982. Mr. Condit commented that they could not tell from the record where the measurement began on the south side. Mr. Condit reviewed the conflict between the Development Ordinance requirement of a mandatory 25 foot buffer and the Comprehensive Plan policy on stream corridor buffers. lie noted that in the case of a direct conflict, the Comprehensive Plan ruled;and therefore, the City could not apply a mandatory minimum. However, the Plan did require that a buffer zone be established. Based upon the evidence and testimony in the record, Council could determine the depth and width of the buffer zoneby either setting it at the 25 feet recommended by staff,or increasing or decreasing the size of the buffer. 3. If staff believed that there was sufficient protection for the trees and natural vegetation with the conservation easement on the north, why wasn't the same true on the south side? Mr. Pishvaie stated that on the north side they were concerned only with the trees but on the south side they were concerned with preserving the ecosystem of the stream corridor itself. A conservation easement was sufficient to protect the 16 trees on lots 4-12, but a 25 foot stream corridor buffer was needed to protect the bank of Ball Creek, the natural vegetation, trees and the wildlife habitat. 4. What was the difference between a buffer zone and a conservation easement? Mr. Condit explained that a conservation easement was an easement over the rear of the parcels that would be created and sold for development. It was a property right conveyed to the city to protect whatever characteristic the Council desired to protect. The effect was that it did not change the rear lot line for the purposes of measuring setbacks. Mr. Condit explained that the buffer zone was a part of the common property that was attached to the stream corridor. It began at the top of the bank and went 25 feet, at which point the lots started. The setbacks measured from the rear lot line reduced the building envelopes on those lots. Mr. Pishvaie stated that Condition 10,page 20,did impose severe limitations on what could occur within the conservation easement on the south properties in Plan A, including no development of services(i.e., buildings, landscaping). However, a buffer zone(Plan B) would be added to the open space tract and remain outside of private properties. Mr. Condit diagrammed the differences between Plan A and Plan B with regards to the conservation easements, the buffer zone, and the size of the building envelope. He noted that in Plan B, the applicant was concerned that the building envelope size was reduced to too small a size to be economical. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15 October 4, 1994 83 5. Was it legally possible to have a combination of a buffer zone and a conservation easement-to allow a conservation easement at the time the building permit was taken out and transfer it to a buffer zone at the final approval? Mr. Condit said he thought it could be done that way because this was a planned development. He noted that the property owner could build the house back to the property line because of where the setback would be measured from. 6. Could the setback from the front lot line be 15 or 10 feet instead of the 20 feet required by the DRC (in order to provide for an adequate building envelope)? Mr. Pishvaie said it could be done. Mayor Schlenker commented that some of the lots were very small lots; she thought that perhaps the buffer zone could be reduced by 10 feet on the small lots. Mr. Condit concurred that that was an option. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that they did have some flexibility in the setbacks;the main house could have a 15 foot setback with the garage at 20 feet or the rear yard setback could be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. 7. Which lots were the critical lots in terms of being reduced in size by a buffer? Mr. Pishvaie stated that he thought lots 1, 13 and 24 were the ones most likely impacted. Councilor Holstein moved to dispose of the two procedural errors based upon the fact that those procedural errors were addressed tonight. Councilor Klammer seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker voting in favor. Councilor Anderson moved to accept staff recommendations. Councilor Chrisman seconded the motion. Councilor Anderson amended his motion to allow the building envelope to move forward 10 feet on lots 24 and 13. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker voting in favor; Councilor Holstein voted against the motion. Mr. Condit reminded everyone that,the hearing was still open until the findings were adopted and to avoid any ex parte contacts. VII. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL Mayor Schlenker entered two letters into the record. The first was from the Lake Oswego School District thanking staff for their cooperation in the fuel tank decommissioning project recently completed. The second was an invitation from the Washington County Sheriff to proclaim October 27 as "Turn off the violence" Day and to participate in a candlelighting ceremony at Sunset High School on October 26. Mayor Schlenker announced the Red Ribbon Kickoff at Sabin School at 10 a.m. on Friday; Norma Paulus and Nora and Myrna Komerina would be in attendance. City Council Minutes Page 14 of 15 October 4, 1994 84 D. Luscher Farm Recommendation Councilor Holstein moved to direct staff to pass the Luscher Farm recommendation on to the Natural Resources Advisory Board,the Park& Recreation Advisory Board,and the Historic Review Board and to include dollar amounts, [(the report) from them to Council will be] due after the first of the year. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors Anderson, Chrisman, Klammer, Holstein, Puskas and Mayor Schlenker voting in favor. IX. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS A. City Manager Mr. Schmitz announced that the Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Board was conducting a meeting on the West Bay issue at.the Waluga School cafeteria on Thursday at 7 p.m. All the neighbors between South Shore, Cedar, Lakeview and Bryant(including Kelok)have been invited. In response to a question from Councilor Anderson, Mr. Schmitz reported that the lumber for the boardwalk at Blue Heron has been ordered and was supposed to be in this week, B. City Attorney Mr. Condit announced that he would be on vacation Thursday through Monday. He stated that he would be distributing a copy of a Tigard aesthetic ordinance that regulated parking of motor homes on streets to get further direction from Council on how broadly they wanted Lake Oswego's ordinance worded. X. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Schlenker adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVED BY COUNCIL: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 15 of 15 October 4, 1994 85 VII - A CITY OF 'LAKE OSWEGO 11/01/94 AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution 94-59 -Supplemental Budget#1 for 1994-95. ISSUE: Should the City Council approve Resolution 94-59 to provide further appropriations and fund transfers in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes, reflecting interfund transfers and unanticipated revenues and expenses? OPTIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution 94-59. 2. Modify Resolutions 94-59. 3. Reject r_�_-olution 94-59. RECOMMENDATION: Option #1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: $2,135,134 Budget Additions NOTICED (Date):10/13/94 and 10/20/94 11554,500) Budget Reductions EXPENDITURE: X PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVENUE: CONSIDERATION [Date(s)]: BUDGETED? NO This is a Supplemental Budget ACCOUNT# Various Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present: No Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's ATTACHMENTS: policy manual? Yes No X - 10/20/94 Memo to Schmitz from Griswold- - Resolution 94-59 C\Pat\Bruce\Agenda6 87 EIZ °RECON FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz,City Manager FROM: Bruce Griswold, Finance Director DATE: October 20, 1994 SUBJECT: 1994-95 City Supplemental Budget Changes Supplemental Budget#1 for the 1994-95 fiscal year makes several changes to adjust budget appropriations so that categories are all within guidelines at year end. All budget changes indicated were not anticipated when the original 1994-95 budget was adopted. Changes in the budget appropriation do not necessarily mean budgeted funds will be spent. If the funds are not. spent,they will be carried forward to the next year in the appropriate fund. Discussed below is a synopsis of the rationale for the changes. General Fund The only change required in this fund results from a transfer of funds (Resource) from the Bancroll Bond and Redemption Fund as a result of defeased Bancroft debt to cover loans made from the City General Fund to LORA for property purchases in the Redevelopment area. The appropriation increase will go into Nondepartmental-Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance category to be carried over to next year and will not be expended this year. Trolley Fund The Capital Outlay category requires a budget appropriation increase because of capital costs related to construction of the Moody Street crossing that was not anticipated in 1994-95. The resource for this budget change is a cash carryover in excess of the amount budgeted, Public Safety Capital Equinment Fund This change is simply a previously unanticipated transfer of existing fund appropriations from Capital Outlay to Materials & Services for the ambulance lease pay off. The resource is from Capital Outlay funds and the appropriation increase is in Materials & Services. This change involves no new fund appropriations. 180"A" Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • I.,ike Oswego,Oregon 97034 • 15(3)635-0260 • FAX(503)635-0269 89 Parks &Recreation Fund The Material&Services appropriations need to be increased to cover unanticipated costs related to the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan. The Capital Outlay appropriation increase relates to Roehr Park Restroom construction that was previously expected to be bid in the prior year. The Resource for the above budget changes is a Cash Carryover in excess of the amount budgeted. Parks Acquisition& Development Fund Appropriation increases to cover previously unanticipated costs are needed for the Capital Outlay category related to: A) Pathways at Kerr/Botticelli, Upper/Lakeview and McVey, and, B) High School field lighting. The resource for the appropriation increases is a cash carryover in excess of budget from the previous year. City/School Partnership Fund The City will not realize any of the estimated revenue from the proposed Real Estate Transfer Tax, so the budgeted appropriations are also being eliminated in this fund. Golf Course fund, Budget appropriations are proposed to increase because of an early payoff of the Driving Range LID to eliminate an old high interest rate obligation. Resources are a Cash Carryover in excess of the amount budgeted and the fund Contingency category. Bancroft Bond & Redemption Fund Budget appropriations are proposed to increase because of a Transfer of Funds to the General Fund to cover funds loaned from the City's General Fund to LORA for property purchases in the Redevelopment area. As of October 1, 1994, all debt in the Bancroft Bond&Redemption Fund has been defeased. The resource is a Cash Carryover in excess of the amount budgeted. S Bruce Supp.CMO 90 RESOLUTION 94-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1994, APPROVING RESOURCES AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS. WHEREAS, Certain conditions had not been foreseen during the initial preparation of the 1994-95 budget and now require changes in financial planning; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts Supplemental Budget #1 for the fiscal year 1994-95 in the sum of $2,135,134 (budget additions) and ($554,500) (budget reductions) now on file at the City Finance Director's Office at 380 'A' Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes: A) The resources and requirements listed below are hereby approved and appropriated, or B) Transfers of Funds and Transfers of Fund Appropriations listed below C) Budget Appropriation reductions for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1994 and ending June 30, 1995 for the purposes stated. Summary of Supplemental Budget Supplemental Budget#1 General Fund Resources: Transfers From Other Funds $598.011 Requirements: Nondepartmental - Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $598,011 flosolution 94.59 9 1 Trolley Fund Resources: Cash Carryover in Excess of Amount Budgeted $30.000 Requirements: Capital Outlay $30.000 Public Safety Capital Eauioment Fund Resources: Capital Outlay $54.000 Requirements: Materials & Services $54,00p Parks & Recreation Fund Resources: Cash Carryover in Excess of Amount Budgeted 245 000, Requirements: Materials & Services $ 20,000 Capital Outlay 225.000 1245.000 Parks Acquisition & Development Fund Resources: Cash Carryover in Excess of Amount Budgeted x,523.112 Requirements: Capital Outlay 1523,112 City /School Partnership Fund Resources: Miscellaneous Revenue ($554.500) Requirements: Other Financing Uses ($550,000) Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance j 4.500) ($554,500) Golf Course Fund Resources: Cash Carryover in Excess of Amount Budgeted $60,000 Contingency 27.000 $87.000 Requirements: Materials & Services $8.7,000 Resolution 04.59 9ti Bancroft Bond & Redemption Fund Resources: Cash Carryover in Excess of Amount Budgeted $598 011 Requirements: Transfers to Other Funds $598.011 Section 3. The Finance Director shall certify, file with, and give notice to the County Clerks and County Assessors of Clackamas County, Multnomah County, Washington County, Oregon and the Oregon Department of Revenue, information as required by ORS 294.555. Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of November 1994. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Alice Schlenker, Chair ATTEST: Kristi Hitchcock, Recording Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey Condit, City Attorney faesolution 94-59 93 VII - B CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 11 /01/94 AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Public hearing on AP 94-03, appeals of the Planning Commission approval of ODPS 1-90/PD 2-92/SD 6-92 by the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, Mt. Park Homeowners Association, and Pfeifer Farm Homeowners Association. ISSUE: Should the City Council adopt the staff recommendation and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of this project? OPTIONS: 1. Uphold Planning Commission Decision 2. Uphold appeals. 3 Continue consideration. 4. Remand to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning FISCAL IMPACT: N/A NOTICED (Date): Mailed October 5, 1994 EXPENDITURE: PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVENUE: $ CONSIDERATION N/A [Date(s)]: BUDGETED? YES NO ACCOUNT Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present: N/A Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's ATTACHMENTS: policy manual? Yes No XX 23 June Pishvaie staff report with attachments k:\kristi\check 95 IX CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 11/01/94 AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Clarification on West Bay Traffic Changes. ISSUE: Should the City Should the City Council remand the West Bay matter to the Neighborhood Traffic Advisory Board for rehearing with an enlarged impact area? OPTIONS: 1. Reaffirm NTAB recommendation. 2. Select Exhibit 1 as the test 3 Remand the matter to NTAB. RECOMMENDATION: Option #3 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Assistant City Manager FISCAL IMPACT: N/A NOTICED (Date): N/A EXPENDITURE: PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVENUE: $ CONSIDERATION 9/6/24,9/20/94 [Date(s)]: BUDGETED? YES NO ACCOUNT Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present: Yes Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's ATTACHMENTS: policy manual? Yes No xx -October 10 Kincaid memorandum with attachments - k:\kristi\check 9'1 • MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Robert A. Kincaid,Assistant City Manager Subject: Clarification on West Bay Traffic Changes Date: October 10, 1994 Action Clarify the action taken on the diverter design for the intersection of Southshore and West Bay. Background I was asked to help resolve some of the issues concerning traffic changes approved fir West Bay Road. In reviewing the record of the City Council meeting on September 6, 1994, there was a brief ' discussion of a diverter at the intersection of Southshore and West Bay. All of the discussion centered around making left hand turns off of Southshore onto West Bay. There was no discussion of prohibiting right hand turns off of Southshore on to Way Bay. At the meeting held on October 6, 1994 at Waluga Junior High School with the entire neighborhood area, staff presented a map that depicted the proposed intersection design. (See Exhibit 1) During the open discussion,it was noted that the map did not reflect the understanding that West Bay residents had of the NTAB recommendation to the City Council.(Sce Exhibit 2) The design difference prohibits a right hand turn off of Southshore on to West Bay. Since the Council did not discuss the issue of a prohibition of a right hand turn off of Soulhshore onto West Bay,staff felt it important to seek clarification before the test change is implemented. Options The Council could reaffirm the NTAB recommendation and select Exhibit 2 as the lest. The Council could select Exhibit I as the test. The Council could remand the matter to the NTAB for rehearing with an enlarged impact area. 9!j A WEST BAY ROAD coo EXHIBIT #1 10i m co, �►�� WEST BAY 5 ROAD • EXHIBIT #2 I (1 : X CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 11/01/94 AGENDA CHECK LIST MEETING DATE: November 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Proposed Master Fees Update. ISSUE: Should Resolution 94-60, approving an updated Master Fee Schedule,be updated? OPTIONS: 1. Approve Resolution 94-60. 2. Make changes to proposed Master Fee Schedule and approve Resolution 94-60. 3. Do not approve Resolution 94-60. Make no changes to existing Master Fee Schedule. RECOMMENDATION: Option#1 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: 1994-95 Est net revenue increase NOTICED (Date): N/A $24,000 -$29,000 (Net) EXPENDITURE: PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVENUE: CONSIDERATION [Date(s)]: December 21, 1993 BUDGETED? NO Some budgeted and some not. ACCOUNT# Various Would the adoption or implementation fulfill an identified City Council goal, past or present: Yes Is this a policy for inclusion in the City's ATTACHMENTS: policy manual? Yes No X -Memo to Schmitz from Griswold of 10/24/94 -Resolution 94-60 -Exhibit A-Amendments to Master Fees &Charges s\Bruce\Agenda? 103 c E �!L oRtcON FINANCE 1)F1',\RTNIENT MEMORANDUM TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Bruce Griswold, Finance Director DATE: October 24, 1994 SUBJECT: Proposed Master Fees Update - 1994-95 Attached are amendments to the January 1, 1994 Master Fees Update. The changes are proposed because of the reexamination of all City fees and charges and regulations passed since last December when the Master Fee Resolution was adopted. Highlights of the proposed fees update are as follows: Fees Eliminated • Multiple Planning Fees related to the Development Code Planning related fees eliminated because of changes to the Development Code in March 1994. Fees Reduced • NSF Check Charges Reduced fees from $50 to$20 for a first offense and from $100 to $40 for repeat offenses. To bring NSF check charges down to a level comparable to the going market rate. • Solicitation License Fees Reduce Solicitation License Fees from $25 to $15. This change is to correct a discrepancy between Master Fees and the City Code. 380"A" Avenue • I'o't Office Box 3t • Cake Oswego,Oregon 97014 • (503)635-0260 • FAX(503)63540269 1 0 5 • Business Licenses Exemption for very small businesses with under$3000 gross annual revenue to give these businesses relief from Business License fees and requirements. Adjusted Fees • Tree Removals To bring proposed revisions in the City Code and Master Fees into agreement. • Many planning fees, including appeal fees To account for salary and benefit related cost-of-living adjustments and to reflect amendments to the Development Code in March 1994. • Lien Search Fees Proposed increase$5 per lien search to cover City liability risks associated with lien searches and to raise additional revenue. • Ambulance Fees Adjusted to reflect new ordinance and related agreements. Fees Not Adjusted Most of the fees that were reviewed were not adjusted. Most prominent of the fees not changed were the water, sanitary sewer and surface water utility user charges for in-City utility customers,as well as fees for Parks&Recreation,Golf,Tennis, Engineering, Building and Systems Development Charges. s:e/m ufees.doo 106 1 RESOLUTION 94-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE.CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO UPDATING RESOLUTION 93-78, FEES AND CHARGES OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City has adopted from time-to-time the fees and charges for services; and, WHEREAS, the City has found it necessary to revise or delete various fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon that the revised fees and charges as shown on Exhibit A shall be adopted by the City of Lake Oswego and incorporated into the Master Fees and Charges of the City (R-93-78). Considered and enacted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of November, 1994. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor ATTEST: Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney's Office \R DOLUTN\FORMAT DOC 107 07 EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION 94-60 AMENDMENTS TO MASTER FEES AND CHARGES Adopted by Resolution 93-78 ***Additions are in bold; deletions are lined Section 1. Administration A) Business License Applications Exempt Businesses: Businesses that have under$3,000 gross annual income (Calendar year basis) from Business License requirements are exempt from Business License Fees. C) City Utility Rates and Charges Water,Sanitary Sewer, & Surface Water Charges • For customers outside the City may be set by specific agreement. • Water&Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Customers outside the City but not covered by a special agreement with the City, shall be charged 160% of Standard In-City Rates. • Utility charges may be administratively reduced by staff if circumstances warrant. • . . •. . . 1• . . . . (6) Ambee • k x}fi -2/2/04 .. . . • (6) Ambulance American Medical Response (AMR) as of 11/1/94. Ordinance No. 2087, effective 1/25/94 and related agreement(s). Fees and charges specified in related agreement(s). E) Public Records Fees 1) Copies of the City Budget or Audit $15/copy 2) Copies of Lake Oswego City Code (no binder) $80 Copies in Word Perfect 6.1 format computer diskette (3 diskette) $56 3) General service copies $.10/page 4) Audio and video tape copies $18 first tape $15 each additional tape 5) Records research $5 per 15 min./request (minimum $5)plus copies and materials charges 6) Computer diskette copies $18 first tape $15 each additional tape 7) Blueprints, maps,etc. See Attachment A (Master Fees and Charges, R-93-78) F) Miscellaneous Fees 6) Lien search fee ($25) $20 per parcel 7) NSF check changes ($20) $50 for the first offense; ($40) $41.00 each for repeat offenses 8) Various fees as set by contractual arrangement Exhibit A Page 1 of 5 Resolution 94.60 109 Section 3. Library Non-resident card ($76) $35 per family per year ***(For clarification, all text is left in this section. Additions are in bold; deletions are lined.) Section 9. Public Works -Planning Department.The following fees shall be charged for the Planning Department activities of the City: Major Comp. Plan amendments and Zone Change (2974) 2860 ,436 Major Comp. Plan amendments only (1487) 1430 7-20 Zone Change only* (749) 720 *Waived Not required for zone changes thatconform to the Comprehensive Plan following annexations Minor modifications to approved amendments (421) 405 Substantial modifications to approved amend. (541) 520 Legislative amendments to a map Major Comp. Plan amendments and Zone Change (2974) 2860 .• • _. •. • . • . . . . . r. • . .. • • _ . • Major Comp. Plan amendments only (1487) 1,430 nor Zone Change only (749) 720 Legislative amendments to a text: Comprehensive Plan text.amendment (1492) 1,435 Zoning Ordinance text amendment (1492) 1,435 2) Planned Development Overlay (952) 915 (120) plus 115/lot 456 1,0339 3) Temporary Structures, Uses 13usiness License andsign permit, if applicable 4) Home Occupations Business License 5) Conditional Uses (1786) 1,716 6) Variances to Zoning Code Class 1 (811) 780 Class 2 (1426) 1,370 7) Greenway Management Overlay (811) 780 8) Modification of Approved Development Permits Minor Modifications meeting LOC 48.60(4)49.58.1426 (473) 455 Substantial Modifications (1071) 1,030 not meeting LOC 49.58,1425 B) Development Code 1) Legislative amendments to a text: Development,Code text amendment (1492) 1,435 2) Minor Developments: Single family dwelling Building Permit Fee Duplex Building Permit Fee Zero lot line dwellings Building Permit Fee Accessory Building which requires Building Permit Fee a building permit(e.g., garage, carport) Accessory structure or use (e.g., driveway, fence) Building Permit Fee Exterior remodeling of duplex or single family Building Permit Fee dwelling requiring a building permit Exhibit A Page 2 of 5 Resolution 94-60 110 Single Family Dwelling in DD Zone(Hearing body action) (1071) 1,030 Duplex in DD Zone (Hearing body action) (1071) 1,030 Zero lot line dwelling in DD Zone(Hearing body action) (1071) 1,030 Exterior remodeling of duplex or single (1071) 1,030 family dwelling requiring a building permit in DD Zone(Hearing body action) Condominium conversion (421) 405 plus County recordation fee Minor partition (Administrative) (1191) 1,145 Process to correct creation of illegal lot hristrative) (1191) 1,145 6/ - '4.6 . . 1 g) !,! 4.5 Miner Modification of (473) 455 approved developme..t permit meeting LOC 4071-26 49.58.1425 (including time extensions requiring hearing body approval) Major Modification of (804) 860 approved development permit not meeting LOC 49.58.1425 Lot line adjustment (811) 780 Process to correct creation of illegal lot by line adj. (811) 780 (Administrative) Construction or exterior modification of a single family 811 structure or a structure accessory to a single family use subject to minor development review process Signs (104) 100 per sign Special event sign (59) 57 per event Variance to sign code (473) 455 Change of occupancy classification 0 Change of use (593) 570 Request for formal code interpretation under LOC 49.16.060 (260) 250 Housing moving permit Relocating in Lake Oswego (208) 200 Moving out of Lake Oswego (104) 100 Passing through Lake Oswego 0 r (Blueprint fees and copy charges moved to Public Records, Section 1, Administration) 3) Major Development Fees Subdivision (952) 915 plus 115 (120) per lot Miner Modifications of approved development permits meeting LOC S. • •• • • • •. • 49.58.1425 including time extensions of hearing body approval (473) 455 Modifications of approved development permit not meeting LOC 49.58.1425 (1071) 1030 Major Partition (952) 915 (120) 115 per lot .) 155 Development Review Multiple Family, Commercial, Industrial (1030) 990 + 37%of Building permit fee Secondary dwelling units (898) 863 Exhibit A Page 3 of 5 Resolution 94.60 111 Development involving a DNA (1071) 1,030 (Hearing body action) .85 ,030 Overall Development Plan and Schedule (1071) 1,030 Minor modification meeting (473) 465 LOC 49.440(Administrative Action) Modification requiring hearing body action (1071) 1,030 Variance to Development Ordinance and Standards Class I variance (811) 780 Class II variance (1425) 1,370 C) Fees Relating to Historical Preservation (LOC Chapter 58) Designation of Landmark No fee Historic District Designation No fee Withdrawal of historic district designation (1426) 1,370 Removal or demolition of Landmark (1426) 1,370 Exterior alteration of Landmark No fee New construction (354) 340 not attached to historic structure; e.g., detached garage, secondary dwelling, garden shed) D) Other Fees Pre-application Conference Development Review (109) 105 All other applications 10%of application fee Appeals: . :9A *(Notaf . • Development-7) . . . t) . .. • . . • . . , _• . . . , •. . , • . . _ -y-Cect, 280 «w ... TOG-deposit Appeals of a staff decision to a Hearing Body 100 - Exemptions: The Department of Land Conservation and Development, and recognized neighborhood and home- owners associations are exempt from the fee. - Right to Refund: The fee shall be refunded if the appelant prevails before the hearing body. Appeals of a formal Code interpretation to a Hearing Body 291 Appeals of a Hearing Body decision to CityCouncil One-half Original Appeal Fee Withdrawals: If an appellant withdraws an appeal prior to the decision on the appeal,the City Manager or Planning Director may approve refund of all, part or none of the fee, depending on the amount of staff work that has been expended Exhibit A Page 4 of 5 Resolution 94-60 112 on the appeal at the time of withdrawal. Consultation fee First 30 minutes no charge, then salary x 200% (for each fraction of an hour thereafter) E) Tree Cutting Permit Fees ***(The following section will be in effect.until Ordinance 2097 becomes effective) Exempt property 6 Other than exempt property 75 + 10 per tree; 200 max. In conjunction with development application: Review of proposed tree cutting plan 0 Verification of compliance with approved tree 12 4 2 per tree; 100 max. cutting plan/tree cutting criteria, if applicable Includes application submitted with single family building permit) ***(The following section will apply as of the effective date of Ordinance 2097) 1) Tree Removal Permit Fees Type I Permit 6 Type II Permit 75 + 10 per tree;200 max. Type II Permits in conjunction with development application: Review of proposed tree cutting plan 0 Verification of compliance with approved tree 12 +2 per tree; cutting plan/tree cutting criteria, if applicable 100 max. (Includes application submitted with single- family building permit) 2) Retroactive Permit Fees For violations under LOC 55.02.130(3), retroactive permit fees will be assessed as follows: Type I Permits 18 Type II Permits 225 +50 per tree for those trees which would not have been permitted for removal if a timely application had been filed 3) Mitigation for Tree Removal For violations of the Tree Removal code, LOC 55.02, mitigation is required. Fees per caliper inch for the City's Tree Fund, LOC 55.02.135(1)(a): 25 4) Request for Hearing to Review Tree Cutting Permit Before the Development Review Commission 100 Appeal of DRC's decision to City Council one-half of original tree cutting application fee, $25 minimum. k:\krist.i\forms\EXA94-60 Exhibit A Page 5 of 5 Resolution 94.60 113