HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2017-03-07Lake Oswego City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion.
An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
The Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda .
4.1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
4.1.1 January 24, 2017 Regular Meeting
4.1.2 February 7, 2017, Regular Meeting
4.1.3 February 16, 2017, Special Meeting
Motion: Approve minutes as written
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda allows the LORA Board to consider items that require no discussion.
An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
The Board makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda .
13.1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
13.1.1 November 1, 2016, Special Meeting
13.1.2 February 7, 2017, Special Meeting
Motion: Approve minutes as written
Lake Oswego City Council Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
City Council Executive Session
The Council is meeting in Executive Session under
authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (f) consider records
that are exempt by law from public inspection
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Agenda revised on 3/3 to add an Executive Session at the end of the meeting
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AND LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
March 7, 2017
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
Contact: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
Email: asimpson@lakeoswego.city
Phone: 503-534-4225
Also published on the internet at: www.lakeoswego.city. The meeting location is accessible to persons
with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Manager’s Office at 503-534-4225
48 hours before the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion.
An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda.
Motion: Move to adopt the consent agenda.
4.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes
4.1.1 January 24, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes
4.1.2 February 7, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes
4.1.3 February 16, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes
Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
5. CITIZEN COMMENT (15 minutes)
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise an issue
regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public
hearing. A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply.
Page 2
503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
5.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.1 Ordinance 2736, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending
LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to Allow Bakeries in the IP Zone (LU17-
0002).
Motion: Move to approve LU 17-0002, and to enact Ordinance 2736.
Public Hearing Process:
1. Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
2. Staff Report by Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager
3. Testimony: the following time limits shall be observed, but may be
changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized
neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government
agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes
per individual
4. Questions of Staff
7. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
7.1 Assignment of the Engineering Contract for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project :
Work Order 206
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Consent to Assignment of the
Engineering Contract for the Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant to Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc., WO 206.
8. STUDY SESSION
8.1 Stafford Urban Reserve Remand
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
9.1 Resolution 17-10, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Endorsing the Lake Oswego
School District Bond Measure
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-10.
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
11. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL
12. CALL TO ORDER, LORA
13 BOARD CONSENT AGENDA
13.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes
13.1.1 November 1, 2016, Special Meeting
Page 3
503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
13.1.2 February 7, 2017, Special Meeting
Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
14. BOARD BUSINESS
14.1 Owner’s Representation Services for New Police Facility and City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Motion: Move to award a contract to Day CPM Services, LLC for a not-to-exceed amount of
$250,000 to provide Owner’s Representation Services for the New Police Facility and City
Hall Rehabilitation Project.
15. ADJOURNMENT, LORA
16. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(f) consider records that are
exempt by law from public inspection.
18. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL
503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
DATE: February 28, 2017
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 24, 2017, Regular Meeting
2. February 7, 2017, Regular Meeting
3. February 16, 2017 Special Meeting
4.1
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8
January 24, 2017
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 24, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte,
Kohlhoff, and Buck
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Corinne Strauser,
Deputy City Recorder; Don Johnson, Police Chief; Joel Komarek, Project
Director, Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership; Anne MacDonald,
Stormwater Quality Coordinator; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Jenny
Slepian, Sustainability and Management Analyst
_____________________________________________________________________
3. PRESENTATION
3.1 Introduction of New Officers
Following the Pledge of Allegiance (Agenda Item 4) Chief Johnson introduced the City’s newest
Police Department employees: Community Service Officers Paul Valesano and Steven Coburn
and Police Officers Nicole Murray, Stephen Gorr, and Drew Boggs. After hearing highlights of
their backgrounds, Council members welcomed each of the new officers to the community.
4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance immediately following the Roll Call.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
5.1 Resolution 17-01, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Making Council Liaison and Committee Assignments for 2017
Report and Attachment
Attachment-Revised Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 1
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8
January 24, 2017
Councilor Gudman moved to adopt Resolution 17-01. Councilor Buck seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
No comment was offered.
6.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up
No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented.
7. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
7.1 Award of a Personal Service Contract to Brown and Caldwell, Inc. for an Update to
the 2001 Water Master Plan
Report and Attachments
Mr. Komarek explained that Council was asked to authorize the City Manager to execute a
personal service contract with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. for an update to the City’s 2001 Water
Master Plan. He discussed key points of the Council Report, including primary reasons that the
update was necessary, the request for proposals and selection process, and factors influencing
the recommendation of Brown and Caldwell, Inc.
In response to questions from Councilor Manz about timing of the update process, Mr. Komarek
indicated that, subject to Council approval at this meeting, the kick-off meeting would likely be
held in early February, prior to the scheduled joint meeting with the City of Tigard.
Councilor LaMotte asked about prospects for including water rates and other data in the Portland
State University study related to Lake Oswego’s unincorporated services area. Mr. Komarek
noted that outreach had already begun as this was important information in terms of the Water
Master Plan.
Councilor Gudman inquired about a potential update of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
estimates for the water system as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018 budget process. Mr.
Komarek indicated that Staff’s assessment showed that the $40 million estimated total for the
original CIP recommendation had been reduced to approximately $13 million in current-day
dollars; this was based on effects of projects now completed and avoidance of costs achieved
through the partnership with Tigard.
Councilor O’Neill commended the quality of water now provided. Mr. Komarek agreed and
highlighted the contribution of Water Treatment Plant Manager Kari Duncan and her staff.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8
January 24, 2017
Mayor Studebaker moved to authorize the City Manager to execute the personal service
contract with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
7.2 Board, Commission, and Committee Attendance Report
Report and Attachments
The Report was provided for Council’s information as required, Mr. Lazenby noted.
8. STUDY SESSIONS
Mr. Lazenby explained that the two study sessions were primarily intended to inform Council and
document these important issues, rather than to call for Council action. Given the large number
of issues to be addressed by Council in the year ahead, he had asked the involved Staff to prepare
written reports instead of lengthy presentations, although they were present to answer questions.
8.1 City Facilities Waste Audit
Report and Attachment
Councilor LaMotte thanked Ms. Slepian and City staff for their diligence and awareness
regarding sustainability programs in City facilities as acknowledged in the Council Report.
Councilor Buck asked about additional measures that might be undertaken to further reduce
waste in City operations. Ms. Slepian discussed advantages that might be gained through a
more centralized approach as opposed to the discretionary programs of individual facilities and
departments.
Councilor Manz thanked Ms. Slepian, noting that it appeared the City was doing everything
possible at this time.
8.2 Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permit Renewal Briefing
Report and Attachments
Mr. Lazenby discussed the purpose and background of the municipal stormwater permit, a
Federal requirement. He emphasized the importance of controlling discharges from the City’s
stormwater system into streams. While Council was not asked to take action at this time, this did
not preclude future changes in the City’s approach, which in turn could be presented in a future
permit renewal process.
Ms. MacDonald, the City staff member coordinating this process, noted that it was important for
Council to be aware that the renewal process was going forward. She reviewed the timeline,
required public involvement activities, and the three key documents comprising the renewal
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8
January 24, 2017
package, as detailed in the Council Report. If Council wished to have a more comprehensive
discussion of the City’s surface water management and related issues, the next couple of years
might be an opportune time, she suggested. Mayor Studebaker invited questions from Council
members.
Councilor Buck asked about the nature of a change the City might make that would require the
permit to be modified. As an example, Ms. MacDonald indicated that if the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) were to impose a more stringent requirement for full stormwater
treatment for new and re-developed impervious area, this could require modification of the
threshold for such treatment. At this point, she noted, she had not proposed any changes that
would require modification of the permit.
Councilor Buck asked about feedback received from other citizen groups during the course of
the public involvement activities. Ms. MacDonald reported that relatively little feedback had been
heard, although the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) wished to discuss the topic further.
Councilor Buck asked if the City had adequate revenue to meet the expected increases in capital
expenditures, as cited in the Staff report (Council Report, p 4). Ms. Rooney indicated that it was
not possible to answer the question without specific directives as to stormwater improvements.
However, the cost of projects is increasing; a major factor is that the projects include more
components than in the past. Despite this, the City is actively accomplishing stormwater
improvements whenever possible. In terms of compliance with the current stormwater permit,
projects identified in the permit receive ongoing focus, including CIP decision making. Ms.
MacDonald noted that the permit is largely involved with operational activities such as
development review and maintenance. At this point the City would not be found out of compliance
by failing to do a specific project.
In response to questions from Councilor O’Neill, Ms. MacDonald described the water quality
testing performed by the City. A specific concern was raised about an unincorporated area where
many homes were on septic rather than sewer, with likely adverse effects on water quality. In
brief discussion about benefits of annexation, Ms. MacDonald noted that the area was subject to
Clackamas County stormwater rules, operating under the same permit as the City of Lake
Oswego. Her expectation was that stormwater activities of this area and the City would be
comparable.
Councilor LaMotte requested clarification of the permit renewal package in terms of purpose
and content. Ms. MacDonald confirmed that this would not contain new ideas or suggestions,
but would update the plan by removing elements of the 2012 permit that had been accomplished.
She discussed the opportunity for the City to now focus on operational activities in the plan that
would further advance stormwater quality. Responding to Councilor LaMotte’s additional
questions about the previous year’s updates to code and the design plan, Ms. MacDonald
explained that those updates complied with a one-off permit requirement of the 2012 permit.
Councilor LaMotte asked if the Lake Corporation had been part of the discussions. They were
not, Ms. MacDonald advised, but were regularly involved with Staff through the development
review process and through the Oswego Lake Watershed Council. She was willing to invite their
input, she indicated.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8
January 24, 2017
Ms. MacDonald responded to questions from Councilor LaMotte about the status of the
inspection program noted in the Staff report (Council Report, p 2), clarifying that this pertained to
an inspection program for private facilities.
Councilor LaMotte requested information about plans to conduct assessments of potential
benefits of addressing stormwater management at the neighborhood or community level, rather
than lot by lot. A short discussion ensued about related projects and CIP decision making. Ms.
Rooney commented on the extensive effort that would be entailed, but noted it might be
considered in the future. Ms. MacDonald agreed, adding that consideration needed to be given
not only to execution of projects, but to maintenance and available resources.
Councilor Gudman observed that CIP funding for Surface Water projects had been increasing
over the past several years, evidence of the City’s commitment in this area. He asked his
colleagues to recall the increase of about 6% for the Surface Water element versus the 3% for
utility charges in total, as approved in the previous November’s adoption of the Master Fees and
Charges schedule.
Ms. MacDonald and Ms. Rooney clarified components of the budget for stormwater regulatory
compliance and facility maintenance, as requested by Councilor LaMotte. Ms. MacDonald
addressed his questions about Boones Ferry Creek (Rosewood) and the declining water quality
trends he had observed in the report (Council Report, Attachment 1, p 3). She indicated that,
although statistically significant, the trend had not varied dramatically over time. The good news
was that water from this creek was being processed effectively at the regional facility before going
into the lake, she noted.
Councilor Buck inquired about the total budgeted amount for 2016-2017 as it was a few million
dollars less than in the two preceding FYs (Council Report, p 4). Ms. MacDonald confirmed that
this was owing to Operations Center expenditures in those two FYs, with 2016-2017 budgeted as
something of a “lull” year. She described the cyclical nature of development and delivery of
surface water capital projects, including timing issues of actual payments.
Councilor Kohlhoff inquired about any source of law that would apply to the City in the event
the Federal Clean W ater Act was eliminated or modified substantially. Ms. MacDonald indicated
that an element of the Clean Water Act was the delegation of authority to states that had the
regulatory framework necessary to implement the Act. Oregon has such a body of law, she noted;
therefore, the DEQ would compel compliance with permits and activities required by the Clean
Water Act.
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Mayor Studebaker noted that the Government Finance Officers Association had again awarded
its Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the City. He congratulated the Finance
Department for the achievement.
Mr. Lazenby thanked Council members for their feedback on the re-drafted 2017 Council Goals.
Explaining that the document was open to Council members’ additional refinement, he invited
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8
January 24, 2017
further input. He highlighted one proposed change, received from Mayor Studebaker, to modify
the proposed Goal dealing with a climate action plan to state: With the Sustainability Advisory
Board (SAB) explore options for a climate change plan. In response to concerns he had heard
about Staff support for addressing the Goals, he discussed resources and strategies that would
be available. He indicated that he did not anticipate any particular problems in delivering Staff
support, although the housing affordability-related Goal could require more time than others.
Having mapped out assignments for the Goals, he expressed confidence in Staff’s ability to meet
Council expectations.
Councilor Kohlhoff reviewed her feedback concerning the draft Goals: (1) The Willamette
Shoreline Trail Goal was not on her list, and should perhaps be discussed further by the Council.
(2) The Goal related to a strategy for addressing PERS increases needed to specify two distinct
activities that had been discussed, i.e., one for budget strategies and the other for an approach
through the Legislature. Otherwise, she regarded the draft as good.
Councilor O'Neill asked about the disposition of items Council had discussed at their Goals
retreat that had not been included in the proposed Goals. Mr. Lazenby indicated that Council
feedback about the priority levels of these items would be helpful to Staff. Although the work
program is fairly ambitious for the coming year, he noted, Staff would make every effort to address
those items that Council members identified as important.
Councilor O’Neill suggested that Council consider modifying the affordable housing Goal to
recognize the needs of workforce versus retired residents. Councilor Manz expressed support
for the Goals as currently drafted.
Councilor LaMotte discussed benefits of reviewing the list of items that had been discussed as
potential Goals but not identified on the draft. Mr. Lazenby indicated that a number of these
items, although not rising to the level of a Council Goal, could potentially be tackled by Staff if so
directed. Following discussion, Council members decided to review these items. With Councilor
LaMotte reading the list, Council members identified points of consensus and discussed others,
including some to be designated as underlying action items for the Goals or not determined to be
a priority. Some of the listed items were already part of Staff work programs, Mr. Lazenby noted.
In support of Councilor O’Neill’s suggestion regarding the affordable housing Goal, Councilor
Kohlhoff suggested a revision to include consideration of all sectors of the community, with a
focus on workforce housing.
Mayor Studebaker called for any additional modifications as he read each of the draft Goals,
requesting indication of consensus. Councilors responded with brief questions and comments.
The proposed modification of the Goal related to a climate action plan generated more extensive
discussion. Mayor Studebaker’s suggested revision was intended to convey that Council would
support looking at the creation of a climate change plan, he explained; he did not want the Goal
to convey that a plan would be created. Councilors Buck and LaMotte indicated that they
supported the draft Goal as currently written, i.e., supporting the creation of a climate action plan
based on advice from SAB.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8
January 24, 2017
Discussion continued, with Councilor O'Neill expressing concern about expectations by SAB
that such a plan would absolutely be approved by Council. He did not believe that had been the
intention, based on Council discussion of this Goal. Various Councilors weighed in, indicating the
need for clarity of direction to SAB, both through statement of the Goal itself and through
processes and operational factors.
Mr. Lazenby indicated that clear direction up front from Council and regular monitoring of SAB
work by Staff would help to mitigate concerns about false expectations with regard to plan
adoption. He suggested revision of the language to provide clarification: Support the creation of
a climate action plan based on advice from the SAB, consistent with Council policy direction.
In further discussion of the challenges and solutions related to community efforts in developing
plans, Councilor Gudman committed to reporting regularly to Council on SAB work. As Council
liaison to SAB, he would also ensure that SAB members were informed about any change in
direction desired by the Council, thus enabling expectations to be managed effectively. The
discussion concluded with Council members indicating consensus in favor of the revised
language as proposed by Mr. Lazenby and for Councilor Gudman’s liaison effort.
Councilor Kohlhoff confirmed that the proposed language for the PERS-related Goal was
satisfactory as revised: Adopt a strategy for addressing PERS increases, both internally through
the Budget and externally through the Legislature.
Next Mayor Studebaker requested Council members to present information on any of their
activities or other matters.
Councilor Buck discussed a letter from the Arts Council requesting that they be allowed to speak
at the 2017 Boards and Commissions Summit, as they did the previous year. He outlined the
benefits of their presence at the Summit and expressed concern that they had not been invited,
since Council had discussed and approved their participation in 2016. He moved to direct Staff
to include a presentation from the Arts Council in the annual Boards and Commissions
Summit until told otherwise by the City Council. Councilor O’Neill seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
Councilor Manz reported on a recent meeting of the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership
Oversight Committee, indicating that the project is nearing completion. The opportunity to discuss
ongoing management of the Water Partnership will be presented at the upcoming joint meeting.
Councilor Gudman outlined agenda items for the February 2 meeting of the Clackamas County
Coordinating Committee. Included were discussions of the County position on Stafford and the
urban and rural reserves, as well as on implementation of a potential vehicle registration fee.
Councilor LaMotte expressed concerns about two businesses seeking space in the Southwest
Employment Area and asked for an update from Staff. Brief discussion of the situation followed.
Mr. Lazenby indicated that Staff would follow up for more information.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8
January 24, 2017
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
Mr. Lazenby reported that Public Works had found that citizens had been placing tree debris from
their private properties in the public right of way, expecting that it would be picked up. The City
does not provide this service, but many other options are available to residents. Responding to
questions from Councilor Buck, he clarified that the City would handle removal of debris from
street trees that had fallen and that trees blocking the right of way could be reported to Code
Enforcement. Mr. Powell added that the City had also received a number of recent calls about
responsibility for snow and ice removal. Staff planned to undertake a heightened public education
effort on obligations of residents and businesses regarding these and similar issues for next
winter, he indicated. Brief related discussion followed.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Corinne Strauser, Deputy City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON __________________
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12
February 7, 2017
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 7, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. on February
7, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Kent Studebaker and Councilors Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman,
LaMotte and Kohlhoff
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie
Simpson, City Recorder; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Amanda Owings,
Traffic Engineer; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Leslie Hamilton, Senior
Planner; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director
Others Present: Todd Chase, FCS Group
_____________________________________________________________________
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(e) to conduct
deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions.
Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the
parameters.
The Council met in executive session beginning at 6:03 p.m.
The Council reconvened in open session at 6:35 p.m.
5. CONSENT AGENDA – For Full Council Approval
5.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes
5.1.1 December 20, 2016, Regular Meeting Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12
February 7, 2017
5.1.2 January 3, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes
5.1.3 January 14, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes
Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
Report and Attachments
5.2 Resolution 17-03, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving Changes to the Term Expiration Date for Budget Committee Members
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-03.
Report and Attachment
5.3 Resolution 17-05, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Amending City Council Administrative Procedure No. 4 Relating to Board and
Commission Attendance Records
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-05.
Report and Attachment
5.4 Resolution 17-09, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Declaring a Public Necessity to Acquire Real Property Interests and Exercise the
Power of Eminent Domain (Boones Ferry Road Project)
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-09.
Report and Attachments
5.5 Parks Maintenance Temporary Labor Services Contract
Motion: Move to award a temporary labor services contract to Summit Staffing Solutions,
in an amount not to exceed $350,000.
Report and Attachments
5.6 Ordinance 2735, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Increasing the
Membership of the Historic Resources Advisory Board
Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2735.
Report and Attachment
END CONSENT AGENDA
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12
February 7, 2017
Councilor Gudman moved the adoption of the Consent Agenda. Councilor Manz seconded
the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
Buck, O’Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
6. CONSENT AGENDA – For Councilors’ Approval
6.1 Resolution 17-06, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving Appointments to the Library Advisory Board
Report and Attachment
6.2 Resolution 16-68, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the Lake Oswego City
Council Approving Appointments to the Historic Resources Advisory Board
Report and Attachments
END CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Manz moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 6.1 and 6.2. Councilor Buck
seconded the motion.
After Council members confirmed that the intent was to adopt Version One of Resolution 16-68
pertaining to the Historic Resources Advisory Board, a voice vote was held, and the
motion passed, with Councilors Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff
voting ‘aye’. (6-0)
7. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Tim Goodman, 9605 SW Nimbus Avenue, Beaverton 97008
Mr. Goodman, Director of Government Affairs with the regional office of Comcast, introduced his
new colleague, Sarah Garrison. Ms. Garrison will be managing the Metropolitan Area
Communications Commission franchise and will be the City’s new representative at Comcast.
Mr. Goodman announced that Comcast will continue as the title sponsor for Lake Oswego’s
parks concerts. He presented a $13,500 check for the 2017 sponsorship. Mayor Studebaker
expressed the Council’s appreciation to Comcast.
7.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up
No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 Resolution 17-07, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Adopting an Updated Lake Oswego Transportation System Development Charges
Eligible Project List and Methodology. Resolution 17-08, A Resolution of the City
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12
February 7, 2017
Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adopting the Lake Oswego Transportation
System Development Charge Rate Table.
Report and Attachments
Staff Report
Ms. Rooney introduced Mr. Chase, principal with FCS Group, provider of analytical services for
this update to the City’s Transportation System Development Charges (SDCs). They were joined
by Ms. Owings, who had provided technical support and direction regarding the related project
list and cost estimates. Ms. Rooney noted that an update to the Council’s November study
session had been provided as Attachment 3 of the Council Report. Ms. Owings briefed Council
on subsequent follow-up with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), indicating that they were
present to express their support for the proposal. Mayor Studebaker indicated that several
eComments had been received, as well.
Ms. Rooney noted that the presentation was a recap of Staff efforts, as discussed in the Council
Report. Their goal was Council adoption of the two resolutions (Council Report, Attachments 1
and 2): one to adopt the proposed methodology and the other to adopt the rate table.
Mr. Chase, with an accompanying PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview on SDCs,
including key characteristics, the legal framework, components and calculation of the charges,
credit policy and interpretations, growth calculation, and cost basis for both the reimbursement
and improvement fees. Noting that SDC-eligible project cost is determined based on the
percentage that is for new capacity, he described the effects on Lake Oswego’s fee and the
maximum defensible Transportation SDC per person trip, which is proposed at $945 (Council
Report, Attachment 1, Exhibit A to Resolution 17-07). The City had not changed its methodology
for 20 years, he observed, discussing the position of Lake Oswego on the low end of the total-
SDCs spectrum compared to other cities in the region. Finally, he discussed implementation
options. Staff recommends the maximum SDC shown in the methodology report; however, in
terms of implementation, Mr. Chase described phased-in alternatives to the proposed July 1
effective date, along with other options and their potential effects.
Questions of Staff
Councilor Gudman inquired about sensitivity of the $945 number as related to the average
number of daily person trips, given that Lake Oswego’s small annual growth rate and aging of
residents suggests fewer rather than more trips. Mr. Chase explained that this is tied to the City’s
adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP) and described potential effects if the TSP
assumptions were to be re-visited.
Councilor Kohlhoff asked if the calculation of a trip included bus or other mass transit. Mr.
Chase indicated that Metro’s calculation primarily consisted of bike, pedestrian, and car trips. He
discussed potential effects and considerations if bus trips were to be included in the calculation.
Councilor Buck asked about the recommendation to include indexing in the SDC proposal. Ms.
Rooney confirmed that annual indexing was reflected in both of the proposed resolutions.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12
February 7, 2017
Councilor O'Neill asked about applicability of this SDC when a house is demolished and
replaced by a new house. Ms. Rooney advised that, as with other SDCs, where there is a 1:1
ratio of existing to new house, the SDC would generally not be incurred. She discussed the
applicability of the charges as being limited to new houses that represented a net increase; in
recent years, there had been about 50 such single-family houses per year. She responded to
Councilor O’Neill’s questions about consideration of future annexations in the Roadways portion
of the improvement fees (Exhibit A to Resolution 17-07, p 6). If the City were to face sudden and
rapid growth, she would recommend reviewing this matter again.
In response to questions from Councilor LaMotte, Mr. Chase provided further information about
factors leading to the larger growth number, referencing Exhibit 2.1 of the methodology report
(Exhibit A to Resolution 17-07, p 4). In addressing Councilor LaMotte’s further questions, Mr.
Chase, Ms. Rooney, and Ms. Owings detailed methodology for trips calculation and effects and
the use of nationally-sourced vehicle data, as provided by Metro.
Mayor Studebaker asked for clarification about the $14,760 SDC amount for a single-family
detached unit. Ms. Rooney confirmed that this represented only the transportation portion; the
additional SDCs would bring the total to $37,512 under this proposal, as compared to the current
total of $26,947.
Councilor Manz inquired about Lake Oswego as compared to other cities with a similar basis for
growth. Mr. Chase noted Lake Oswego’s position on the lower end of the spectrum of West
Coast communities that have SDCs. With less than a 1% annual growth rate, the City faced a
tough situation as there was growing need for transportation improvements but not a lot of
development to pay for it, he observed.
Ms. Rooney followed up on an email from Mark Whitlow received earlier in the day that had been
provided to Council members concerning the Resolutions. Having spoken with Mr. Whitlow
subsequently, she noted that he had requested mention in the record of his communication.
Testimony
• Randy Sebastian, Renaissance Homes, 16771 Boones Ferry Road
Mr. Sebastian described his concerns about total charges for construction in the city, which
include not only SDCs, but also permits. With adoption of the resolutions he indicated that a total
of $55,000 per house would be required to obtain a building permit. He discussed the numerous
other cost elements for builders, increases over the years, and comparisons with other cities. The
proposed update to transportation SDCs would make Lake Oswego the most expensive place to
build in the metropolitan area, he observed. This increase would be passed on to home buyers,
but affordability would be an issue for new families wishing to live in the city.
• Ed Brockman, 1141 C Avenue
Mr. Brockman noted that he was a member of the Planning Commission and a board member
of the state Home Builders Association. He expressed concerns about the adverse effect on
builders with projects underway if the change was made abruptly. If Council decided to adopt
these increases, he advocated implementing them over time. He also hoped to see a concern by
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12
February 7, 2017
Council for affordable housing and, as noted in the Comprehensive Plan, a diversity of housing
types and workforce housing.
• Paul Grove, Home Builders Association (HBA) of Metropolitan Portland, 15555
Bangy Road
Mr. Grove indicated that he had submitted written remarks on behalf of the HBA. Their
organization recognized that it had been 20 years since the City had updated its Transportation
SDC methodology, and their three recommendations were focused on implementation. (1) An
effective date of January 1, 2018, would be more appropriate as it would allow additional lead
time for projects where a pro forma was already in place. (2) A phased-in implementation would
be a more balanced approach than moving immediately to the maximum defensible amount. (3)
Emphasizing that his remarks pertained solely to single-family housing, he requested that Council
consider a more appropriate starting point for this SDC, perhaps $7,500, rather than as proposed.
• Rick Nys, 13554 Rogers Road
As chair of TAB, Mr. Nys reported on their review and discussion of the SDC methodology,
including follow-up with the FCS Group and Staff. TAB supports the SDC methodology update,
especially favoring the cost indexing and the utilization of person trips rather than auto trips; they
believe the latter is a much more multi-modal approach to the transportation system. Although
there was some concern on the board with the sheer increase in the commercial fees, overall
TAB was supportive of the fee structure, he noted.
In response to a question about commercial fees from Mayor Studebaker, Mr. Nys clarified that
TAB believed both residential and commercial fees should be treated the same because person
trip was the basis for all categories; i.e., if there was any reduction proposed for commercial fees,
then residential fees should also be reduced.
Mayor Studebaker asked if anyone else wished to testify. Hearing no requests, he closed the
hearing.
Councilor Gudman asked Staff to confirm accuracy of the $55,000 amount for total permitting of
a home, as cited by Mr. Sebastian, if Council were to approve the $14,000-plus SDC. Mr. Siegel
and Mr. Lazenby provided information as Council members discussed various scenarios, with
Councilor Gudman concluding that Mr. Sebastian’s hypothesis was essentially correct.
Members of Council posed additional questions, including aspects of the permitting process, the
number of new-home projects underway that potentially could benefit from a six-month delay in
implementation, and merits of indexing or making adjustments to the calculation formula, timing,
and other changes.
Ms. Rooney asked that Council consider keeping the methodology itself intact. She detailed her
belief that this is a better approach, based on an accepted practice in the region and the state,
producing defensible SDC dollar amounts and an easier program to administer. If Council was
concerned with the amount of the increase, a better approach would be to phase in the dollar
amount or reduce it by some percentage, she suggested.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12
February 7, 2017
Discussion continued, concluding with Councilor LaMotte raising issues of affordability,
particularly for homes below the median price. Mr. Chase touched on procedural options that
could be used to address this, as opposed to changing the methodology.
Councilor O’Neill moved to use a starting date of July 1, 2017, but using an index, to make
the starting Transportation SDC amount $8,760, with an increase of $2,000 on July 1 of
each of the subsequent three years (July 1, 2018; July 1, 2019; July 1, 2020), bringing the
amount to $14,760. After that date only indexing would be applied. Councilor Gudman
seconded the motion.
In subsequent discussion, it was generally acknowledged that Council’s primary concern was with
impacts on residential development as opposed to commercial. Mayor Studebaker confirmed
that the motion was applicable only to the SDCs for residential.
Councilor Kohlhoff indicated that she was not willing to support an extension of the
implementation period. The possibility of offering a hardship credit or an exception might be a
consideration for her, but she favored the Resolution as proposed. Councilor Buck concurred,
expressing concern about foregone revenue that would result from a delay and impacts on
needed transportation projects. Council should see what is best for the community as a whole.
Councilor Manz stated that she recognized the value of a phased-in approach. She offered a
friendly amendment that would shorten the phase-in period to two years.
Councilor O’Neill accepted the amendment offer, confirming that it would change the $2,000-
per-year increase over three years to $3,000 per year for two years. Councilor Gudman, as
seconder, also accepted.
After additional discussion to clarify and refine the motion and with approval of mover and
seconder, Councilor O’Neill moved to adopt Resolution 17-07 and Resolution 17-08,
amending the Single-Family Detached Housing line in Exhibit A to Resolution 17-08 to
$8,760 to be effective July 1, 2017, and adding an additional $3,000 plus indexing on
January 1, 2018, and an additional $3,000 plus indexing on January 1, 2019, reaching a
total of $14,760, and only indexing thereafter.
A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
8.2 Ordinance No. 2733, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending the
Comprehensive Plan Text, and the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps, for the
Purpose of Correcting the Maps, Correcting Comprehensive Plan Map Designation
Errors, and Correctly Aligning a Parcel's Zoning with the Comprehensive Plan Map
Designations (LU 16-0035).
Report and Attachments
Mr. Powell read the Ordinance title, reviewed parameters for this land use proceeding, and
outlined the time limits for testimony as shown in the agenda. He asked if any Councilors needed
to declare any conflicts of interest; none were declared. He asked if any member of the public
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12
February 7, 2017
wished to challenge any City Council member’s right to hear the application; no challenges were
heard.
Staff Report
Mr. Espe noted that the public hearing would address legislative Comprehensive Plan Map and
text amendments and Zoning Map amendments. Map changes on individual properties would be
reviewed separately in the future through a quasi-judicial land use public hearing process, he
noted. The overall purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide accurate and complete
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations where corresponding designations between the
two maps are not consistent. In addition to amendments to these maps, definitions to be added
to the Comprehensive Plan text are proposed. With accompanying PowerPoint slides, he
reviewed the public process that had led to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that
Council adopt the proposed amendments (Attachments 2 and 3 to Exhibit A-1.1). No citizen
testimony in opposition to the proposal had been received.
Continuing the presentation, Mr. Espe discussed the review process, including legislative map
corrections, changes to Comprehensive Plan designations, and correction and addition of
definitions in the Plan. He highlighted changes to specific properties, discussing background,
processes, and recommendations as detailed in the Council Report.
Mr. Espe reviewed some specific properties around the City that would be impacted by the
amendments.
Testimony
Mayor Studebaker asked if anyone wished to testify in opposition to or in favor of adoption of the
Ordinance or if anyone wished to present neutral testimony. No requests being heard, he closed
the hearing.
Mayor Studebaker moved to adopt Ordinance 2733. Councilor Manz seconded the motion.
Councilor Kohlhoff discussed her concern about changing the designation of Oswego Lake from
OS to SP in view of the pending litigation. She suggested the possibility of leaving the related
property with its current OS designation until such time as any legal ambiguity is resolved, and
asked if there was any down side to doing so. In ensuing discussion, Mr. Powell and Mr. Siegel
discussed various considerations and responded to additional questions. Mr. Siegel expressed
the belief that the proposed designations provide clarity from a land use standpoint, but were not
intended to be a policy statement beyond that purpose. In addressing other risk to the City, Mr.
Powell indicated that adjudicating challenges of ownership and other matters related to private
property was clearly not the intent of Comprehensive Plan designations; the intent is to recognize
the type of use.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
Buck, O’Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
8.3 Ordinance No. 2732, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC
Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12
February 7, 2017
Updating Various Provisions (2016), Including Pre-Application Conference
Exemptions, Street Front and Side Yard Setback Plane Measuring Points,
Courtyards in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District; and Height of Building
Definition; and Adopting Findings (LU 16-0030).
Report and Attachments
Mr. Powell read the Ordinance title and explained that this was a land use public hearing, as well.
Noting that all audience members had been present for his announcement of the criteria and
hearing process at the preceding hearing, he asked if anyone wished to have the announcement
repeated. No requests being heard, he noted that the audience had waived the re-reading. He
asked if any City Councilor needed to make any declaration with relation to conflicts of interest;
none were heard. He asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge any Council
member’s right to hear the application; no challenges were heard.
Staff Report
Ms. Hamilton explained that Council would be considering the annual package of proposed
amendments to the Community Development Code. She outlined the review process, as detailed
in the Council Report and Attachments, and noted that if adopted, the amendments would become
effective in mid- or late March. The 40 amendments comprising the package included both
maintenance and policy items. With accompanying PowerPoint slides, she discussed the key
amendments being proposed.
Noting that Council had received a new exhibit in the form of an email from the Evergreen
Neighborhood Association regarding the Long Wall Planes amendment, Ms. Hamilton addressed
the issue in some detail. She provided background for the proposed change, which would
streamline the Code and address concerns about different measurement standards in specific
situations where there was no visual difference between a duplex and a zero lot line development.
Testimony
Mayor Studebaker called for any testimony in opposition to the proposal.
Carol Radich, 669 Ellis Avenue, representing the Evergreen Neighborhood Association,
expressed concern that the change related to the Long Wall Plane standard would have an
adverse effect on the neighborhood. Referencing the email she had sent earlier in the day, she
discussed how the current Code had worked effectively in addressing issues related to
development on the neighborhood’s narrow lots. This Code had served its purpose of breaking
up building mass, and the Neighborhood Association believed that the amendment would result
in removal of these protections. Therefore, their board had voted unanimously to request that
this Code change not be made.
Carole Ockert, 910 Cumberland Road, spoke as chair of the First Addition Neighborhood
(FAN)/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. She discussed a printed presentation that was
provided to Council members. She emphasized the effectiveness of current Code in terms of the
new development in the neighborhood, citing very attractive and compatible design examples.
The outcome of the proposed Code change related to the Long Wall Planes issue was of great
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12
February 7, 2017
concern, she noted; it may create the possibility to fit more square footage into these zero lot line
homes, with adverse effects on affordability and design for the neighborhood. She proposed an
alternate formula that would simplify Code and create parity, while avoiding “code chipping”. The
Neighborhood Association board had directed her to request that Council reject the proposed
change to the narrow-lot code for zero lot line dwellings.
Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth Street, representing the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition
(LONAC), discussed concerns about the Long Wall Planes amendment and anticipated adverse
effects on the First Addition R-2 zone. He provided background on the adopted Neighborhood
Plan and described how the design of higher-density, zero lot line houses under current Code
had reflected the vision of that Plan. The proposed Code amendment would introduce a
completely different look to the neighborhood by allowing more bulk to the related dwellings, with
extreme effects on the R-2 zone. He cautioned Council against Code changes that were
generated in response to the request of a single developer. As discussed by LONAC, the
proposal poses big impacts on the FAN/Forest Hills and Evergreen neighborhoods, and he
requested that the City not move forward with this change.
Mayor Studebaker asked if there was any testimony in favor or other testimony on the matter.
Hearing none, he closed the hearing.
After brief discussion, Mayor Studebaker moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2732.
Councilor Buck seconded the motion.
Questions of Staff
Mayor Studebaker requested that Staff respond to questions about points raised in the testimony
related to the Long Wall Planes amendment. He asked if the amendment could result in the
undesirable development outcomes that had been described in the testimony. Ms. Hamilton
indicated that this would not be the case, responding in detail to Council questions about a specific
development in the R-2 zone, among other questions. In continuing discussion, Mr. Siegel noted
that the impetus for proposing this amendment was a desire for parity, or at least consistency, in
addressing the aesthetic issue that applied to both the duplex and zero lot line development
situations. In responding to additional questions, Staff indicated that current Code offered a
variety of other standards that addressed the related concerns about larger and less compatible
structures.
Following further discussion, Councilor LaMotte suggested a friendly amendment to the motion,
such that this one item would be removed from the list of proposed amendments. Mayor
Studebaker stated that he would consent to this change, with the motion to be re-stated to move
to tentatively approve Ordinance 2732 with the deletion of the amendments to
50.06.001(2)(h) and to direct Staff to return with Findings and Conclusions on February 21,
2017.
In concluding discussion prior to the vote, Mr. Siegel noted that Staff would present the item in
the next round of proposed Code amendments if it appeared to make sense to the community.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
Buck, O’Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12
February 7, 2017
Mr. Powell reiterated that this was a tentative decision and that Staff would bring back the final
amended Ordinance reflecting the change and findings on February 21.
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Councilor Gudman complimented the Engineering Department on their recent award for work
on the Rockinghorse Lane surface water outflow project. He reported that the Clackamas County
Coordinating Committee was considering a vehicle registration fee; he had requested that if it was
to go forward, timely communication with all County jurisdictions was needed so it could be
included in the 2017-2018 budget cycle. He noted that PERS preliminary results for 2016
investment returns were reflecting the trend of most of the past ten years in not exceeding the
benchmark; as a result, he expects the assumed rate of return to be reduced by the PERS board
in 2017, which will increase the City’s annual obligations.
Councilor Manz updated Council members on work of the Tourism Advisory Committee. She
had proposed that short-term lodging be a topic at the upcoming joint meeting between the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Councilor LaMotte thanked the PrepLO group for the excellent recent emergency preparedness
presentations at both high schools. He also commended the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network
for the inspiring green building seminar they had presented.
9.1 2017 Council Goals
Report
Mayor Studebaker asked if any Council members wished to request changes to the latest
Council Goals draft (Report). No requests were heard.
Councilor Gudman moved the adoption of the draft 2017 Council Goals. Councilor LaMotte
seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors
Buck, O’Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
No reports were made.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12
February 7, 2017
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON __________________
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4
February 16, 2017
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
February 16, 2017
Council President called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
Present: Councilors Manz, O'Neill, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck
Excused: Mayor Studebaker
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Corinne
Strauser, Deputy City Recorder; Ann Adrian, Adult Community Center
Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner, Amanda Owings, Traffic Engineer;
Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager
_____________________________________________________________________
Councilor Manz welcomed the evening’s attendees on behalf of the City Council and introduced
the staff liaisons in attendance. She noted that ten standing boards comprised of over 80
volunteers give countless hours to benefit the City every year and expressed gratitude for their
work .
50+ Advisory Board Chair Ron Matthews gave an overview of the board’s top six goals, including
the exploration of discounted rates for senior citizens with Uber and Lyft, maximizing current city
bus and shuttle service usage, establishing a working relationship with retirement facilities within
the city in order to better serve their residents, creating a database of recreational activity
participation of seniors to be shared with the Parks and Recreation staff, educating the council
and city staff on the AARP Livability Index Program, and the exploration of building smaller homes
to satisfy the needs of older citizens.
Arts Council Board President Liane Cabot and Executive Director Nicole Nathan presented. Ms.
Nathan detailed the council’s 2016 accomplishments. Ms. Cabot noted that the Arts Council of
Lake Oswego experienced a complete turnover in staff in 2016, which led to the hiring of Ms.
Nathan as executive director, Kelsey Ferreira as the public art and program manager, and Robin
Krakauer as a part-time development associate.
ACLO plans for 2017 include the implementation of a strategic plan, exploring new community
partnerships, establishing a Percent for Art program, progress on the Public Art Master Plan
projects including a signal sculpture, implementation of a targeted public relations and marketing
plan, increasing the donor base, and adding educational and public programs.
ATTACHMENT 3
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
February 16, 2017
Historic Resources Advisory Board Chair Kasey Holwerda reviewed the board’s charge, to
promote and foster the historic, educational, architectural, cultural, economic, and general welfare
of the public through the identification, preservation, restoration, and protection of those
structures, sites, objects, and districts of historic and cultural interest within the city.
Ms. Holwerda noted that the board has completed a Landmark Designation List, augmenting a
body of information about the City’s history and contributing to a statewide database of historic
properties. The Hazelia Agri-Cultural Heritage Trail (HATCH) interpretive panels are close to
completion and the historic Iron Workers Cottage has been occupied by the Lake Oswego
Preservation Society
In 2017, Historic Preservation Grants in the amount of $10,000 will be given to three property
owners. Additionally, the board will create an interactive map that identifies historic landmarks,
finalize outstanding items for HATCH, complete phase three exterior improvements to the Iron
Worker’s Cottage, develop a preliminary review process for property owners who wish to
designate their properties as historic, explore code amendments relating to historic properties,
develop a demolition review policy, and explore code amendments related to ‘demolition by
neglect.’ The board also plans to conduct community outreach focused on workshops for owners
of historic buildings, amend the City’s code to increase the number of board members from five
to seven, and participate in the State’s Certified Local Government Program.
Councilor LaMotte noted that HRAB was instrumental in preserving the exterior lights at the
former Wizer’s grocery store on First Street and A Avenue.
Library Advisory Board Chair Alan Laird announced that the Lake Oswego Reads program was
off to a strong start. The board assists with both the annual selection of the program’s book, as
well as suggests program-related events.
LAB continues to advocate for maintaining current staffing levels in order to support its exceptional
service and programs. They hope to expand library’s presence throughout the City, particularly
where citizens are not currently served. They wish to address the need for space to accommodate
overflow materials and develop a plan that addresses facility size, including a long-term goal of a
new library facility. The board remains active in exploring funding options that support the library,
its endowment, and the flagship Lake Oswego Reads program. Mr. Laird commended the work
of the Friends of the Library and what the group does for the library in this community.
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board Co-Chair Bill Gordon noted that this
past year saw the new ‘Parks Board’ come into being through the combination of the Parks and
Recreation Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
Mr. Gordon synthesized the board’s work into seven goals. Members are reviewing the City’s
Capital Improvement Projects to help prioritize and perhaps eliminate projects. They are also
assessing all parks properties to determine how they could satisfy Parks Plan 2025 objectives.
Development of a potential long range CIP funding strategy for council evaluation, consideration
of ways in which to accelerate the strength and momentum of friends groups active in the parks
system, engagement with the Lake Oswego School Board to explore enhanced partnership
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
February 16, 2017
opportunities, evaluation of the golf course, and exploration of additional recreation opportunities
with pets, round out the work of the board in 2017.
Planning Commission Chair Rob Heape and Vice Chair Bill Ward reviewed 2016 goal progress,
which included implementation of the Southwest Employment Area (SWEA) Plan with a
Southwest Overlay Zone, the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Parking Management Plan,
LGVC Parking Standards, and LGVC Code Streamlining, streamlining of the Commercial and
Industrial Use Table, neighborhood plan updates, Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map
Corrections, Transportation System Plan Code Implementation, Marijuana Time, Place, and
Manner Regulations, Residential Demolitions Permit Notice, annual code maintenance, and
addressing various infill-related issues.
The commission walked six neighborhoods, received briefings from Tri-Met on its SW Service
Enhancement Plan and the City of Portland on the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
assisted the Mt. Park Home Owners Association in forming a City-recognized neighborhood
association.
The Planning Commission 2017 work plan includes issues related to flag lots and private access
lanes, local street connectivity, additional Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map corrections,
annual Community Development Code (CDC) amendments, development of a Lake Grove Village
Center Design Handbook, continued work with neighborhoods, CDC amendments related to the
Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, and a review of the city’s Citizen Involvement
Guidelines with respect to Home Owners Associations.
Sustainability Advisory Board Chair Eliot Metzger reported 2016 ‘wins’ included input into the
new Operations Center, moving forward with LED lighting projects, gaining Council support for a
solar goal, and helping to initiate the food waste compost program. Board goals for 2017 include
assisting Council with building and renewal projects that meet triple bottom line criteria, smart
infrastructure and safe, vibrant communities, and climate action planning. He noted that hearing
the presentations by other boards this evening helped him see opportunities to work with other
boards.
Tourism Advisory Committee Chair Bill Tierney noted that the creation of this committee in 2016
is an investment that benefits the community. The committee looks at opportunities to invest
tourism fund dollars. Increasing visitor activity, better understanding the resources available to
support local tourism, and establishing a marketing plan are the committee’s top goals. The
purchase of ‘gateway art’ for the city is something members will pursue.
Transportation Advisory Board Vice Chair Mike Peebles reviewed the board’s charge statement
and 2016 accomplishments. Plans for 2017 include advising the Council on important
transportation capital improvement projects, reaching out to neighborhood associations to
understand their transportation-related priorities in order to help shape future board
recommendations, and provide educational resources regarding transportation in the areas of
pedestrian safety, bicycling in traffic, crosswalk safety, and driving tips to residents.
Ms. Manz announced the recently adopted 2017 City Council goals and observed that many of
the goals had direct connections to the City’s Boards and Commissions.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4
February 16, 2017
City Manager Scott Lazenby commented on the remarkable number of volunteer hours board
and commission members give to the City each year. The launch of the Lake Oswego New and
Original Idea – or LOONI - competition for City staff had resulted in the idea for a website for
volunteers City-wide that could be used to coordinate volunteer efforts, including some of those
mentioned at this meeting.
Councilor Manz adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON __________________
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Ordinance 2736 – Bakery Amendment (LU 17-0002)
DATE: February 15, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: March 7, 2017
ACTION
Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2736 to consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation on the IP Zone Bakery amendment.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve LU 17-0002, and to enact Ordinance 2736, which includes findings and
conclusions (Exhibit A-1).
Alternatively, if the Council makes changes to the amendment or has additional findings, move
to tentatively approve LU 17-0002 and direct staff to return with proposed findings and
conclusions, together with a final version of Ordinance 2736, for adoption on March 21, 2017.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The proposed amendment was initiated by the City Council in response to a request by a
“production bakery” to locate in a tenant space in the IP zone. “Production bakeries,” as used in
this proposed code amendment, means a business that primarily manufactures and distributes
baked goods for off-site sale and consumption, but may include some accessory retail sales on-
site.
Bakeries, which are broadly defined to include production and distribution as well as retail
sales, are not currently a permitted use in the IP zone; however, other types of food
manufacturing, processing and distribution facilities could be allowed in the IP zone as “light
manufacturing” (LOC 50.10.003.2). Prior to the recent adoption of the Commercial Code
Streamlining amendments (LU 15-0035), there were four different listings for “bakeries” in the
6.1
Page 2
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
Use Table (LOC 50.03.002.3), none of which were permitted in the IP zone, but there was no
definition of “bakery.” It is conceivable that a production bakery, which primarily manufactures
baked goods for distribution, could have been permitted in the IP zone because it is more like
“light manufacturing” than a retail bakery. The Commercial Code Streamlining amendments
collapsed all four of the bakery listings into one use type, “bakery,” added a definition of that
use, and included use-specific standards to limit the size of bakeries in certain zones. There
were no changes to which zones bakeries were permitted in. One of the unintended
consequences of adopting a definition of “bakery” in the prior code amendments was that food
production and processing facilities for baked goods are not permitted in the IP zone because
the broad definition encompasses both large production bakeries and small retail bakeries.
There was no legislative intent to specifically disallow production bakery use in the IP zone
while continuing to allow other types of food production and processing facilities.
The proposed amendment would allow the broad range of “bakery” uses in the IP zone, subject
to use-specific standards. There would be a 2,000 sq. ft. size limitations on retail sales, a
requirement that retails sales either co-locate in a building with another permitted use or be
accessory to a production bakery, and a prohibition against drive-thru service, to be consistent
with the industrial-employment purpose of the IP zone. The use-specific standards match the
limitations for accessory restaurant uses that are currently permitted in the IP zone (see LOC
50.03.004.1.b.iv). This would allow small retail bakeries that are 2,000 sq. ft. or less in size to be
co-located with another permitted use in the IP zone or production bakeries of any size,
provided the accessory retail area does not exceed 2,000 sq. ft.
The Planning Commission (Commission) recommended adoption of Ordinance 2736 and
approved the Findings, Conclusion, and Order at its February 13, 2017, public hearing. Please
see Attachment B (01/31/17 version) to Exhibit A-1 for the amendment recommended by the
Commission.
DISCUSSION
As discussed in Exhibit D-1, the proposed amendment is in compliance with applicable City
Comprehensive Plan policies and Special District plans, state laws, and statewide planning
goals.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed ordinance recommended by the Commission does not have a fiscal impact to the
City because the only effect of the amendment would be to add back a permitted use in the IP
zone that was inadvertently disallowed by the Commercial Code Streamlining amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends that the Council approve
LU 17-0002, and enact Ordinance 2736 (Exhibit A-1), which includes findings and conclusions.
Page 3
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Draft Ordinance 2736, dated 01/31/17
Attachment A:
• City Council Findings and Conclusions
Attachment B:
• Proposed Draft Code Amendments with track-changes and commentary
(for reference only), 01/31/17
• Proposed Draft Code Amendments, 01/31/17
B. Findings, Conclusion and Order
B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusion and Order
(Please note the Ordinance and Attachments A and B referenced in the Findings
are not included. Refer to Ordinance 2736 and Attachment B above [Exhibit A-1]).
C. Minutes
C-1 Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes (LU 17-0002), 02/13/17
D. Staff Reports
D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 01/31/17
E. Graphics/Plans
[No current exhibits]
F. Written Materials
[No current exhibits]
G. Letters
[No current exhibits]
BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES
Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can
be found by visiting the project web page for LU 17-0002.
Use the link below to visit the City’s “Project” page. In the “Search” box enter LU 17-0002 then
press “Submit”:
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/projects
DRAFT 01/31/17
Ordinance 2736 EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 1 OF 2
ORDINANCE 2736
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC
CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO ALLOW BAKERIES IN THE IP ZONE (LU 17-
0002).
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in
the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on February 13, 2017, at
which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that this Ordinance, based on the
record of LU 17-0002, be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the amendment corrects an inadvertent error created when the definition of
“bakery” was adopted last year that excluded production bakeries as a permitted use in the IP
zone when other types of food production and processing are allowed as “light manufacturing”
in that zone; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the Community Development Code is consistent with the
Southwest Employment Area Plan, which is part of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, and
complies with the other criteria stated in the staff report; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 17-0002 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego on March 7, 2017, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received
and considered.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 17-0002), attached as
Attachment A.
Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code is amended by adding the new text shown in underlined
type and deleting text shown in strikethrough type in Attachment B.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. As provided in Section 35C of the Lake Oswego Charter, this ordinance
shall take effect on the thirtieth (30th) day following enactment.
EXHIBIT A-1
LU 17-0002
DRAFT 01/31/17
Ordinance 2736 EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 2 OF 2
Enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 7th day
of March 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
___________________________________
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
David Powell, City Attorney
APPROVED: 02/13/17
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 1 OF 3
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1
OF THE 2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3
4
5
A REQUEST FOR A LEGISLATIVE TEXT ) LU 17-0002 - 1911 6
AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 7
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 8
BAKERIES IN THE IP ZONE ) 9
10
NATURE OF APPLICATION 11
12
Ths is a legislative amendment to the Community Development Code to allow bakeries 13
in the Industrial Park Zone. The affected sections are LOC 50.03.002.3, Commercial, 14
Mixed Use, Industrial and Special Purpose Districts Use Table, and LOC 50.03.003.6.g, 15
Use Specific Standards. 16
17
HEARINGS 18
19
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its 20
meeting on February 13, 2017. 21
22
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 23
24
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 25
Land Use Planning Goal: 26
Development (Community Development Code) 27
Policy A-1.b 28
Policy A-1.c 29
Policy A-1.i 30
31
Land Use Administration 32
Policy D-1 33
Policy D-6 34
35
Community Culture Goal: 36
Civic Engagement 37
Policy 1 38
39
Economic Vitality Goal: 40
Economic Development 41
Policy A-2 42
Policy A-3 43
Policy A-4 44
EXHIBIT B-1
LU 17-0002
APPROVED: 02/13/17
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 2 OF 3
Policy A-7 1
Policy A-9 2
3
Employment Zones 4
Policy B-1 5
6
B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 7
Title 4: Protection of Employment Areas, Metro Code Section 3.07.440 8
9
C. Transportation Planning Rule 10
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 11
12
D. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 13
LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 14
LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined 15
LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision 16
LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD 17
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required 18
LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 19
20
CONCLUSION 21
22
The Planning Commission concludes that LU 17-0002 is in compliance with all 23
applicable criteria. 24
25
FINDINGS AND REASONS 26
27
The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated January 31, 2017, for LU 28
17-0002 (with all exhibits) as support for its decision. 29
30
ORDER 31
32
IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 33
34
1. The Planning Commission recommends that (Ordinance 2736, per Attachment B, 35
dated 01/31/17 (LU 17-0002), be approved by the City Council. 36
37
38
APPROVED: 02/13/17
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 3 OF 3
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning 1
Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. 2
3
4
DATED this 13th day of February 2017. 5
6
7
8
Rob Heape /s/ 9
Rob Heape, Chair 10
Planning Commission 11
12
ATTEST: 13
14
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - February 13, 2017 15
16
AYES: Arthur, Baker, A. Brockman, E. Brockman, B. Gaar, R. Heape, B. Ward 17
NOES: None 18
ABSTAIN: None 19
EXCUSED: None 20
DRAFT: 02/17/2017
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 1 OF 2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Planning Commission Minutes
EXCERPT OF LU 17-0002
February 13, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City
Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Vice Chair Robert Heape and Commissioners Randy Arthur, Skip
Baker, Adrianne Brockman, Ed Brockman, William Gaar and Bill Ward. Council Liaison
Theresa Kohlhoff was also present.
Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Jessica Numanoglu
Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Senior Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Iris
McCaleb, Administrative Support.
PUBLIC HEARING
Community Development Code Amendment to Allow Bakeries in Industrial Park Zone
(LU 17-0002)
Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable criteria and procedures.
At time of declarations no conflicts of interest were reported.
Commissioner A. Brockman stated that the proposed amendments were clear and suggested
that presentation of the staff report be dispensed with and the Commission agreed by
consensus.
Questions of Staff
In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur, Ms. Numanoglu advised that the
definition of bakery was broad and that the proposed amendment was for both retail and
production bakeries, however it was primarily for manufacturing and distribution for off-site
sales. She clarified that in the Industrial Park (IP) zone there would be use-specific standards
limiting the retail component to 2,000 sf resulting in more of an employment type of production
bakery use as the primary use with the potential for accessory retail.
Public Testimony
Brent Bianchina, 18050 Tualata Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97035, asked if the proposed
amendment meant that a bakery would be allowed in the IP zone, if it would have to be
incorporated with another use in a building or structure, or if it could be a free-standing bakery.
Ms. Numanoglu explained that it would allow a free-standing production bakery, which would
be primarily for manufacturing and distribution for off-site sales with some accessory retail; if it
were purely retail it would be limited to 2,000 ft in size and must be co-located with another
PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DRAFT MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED
OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION.
EXHIBIT C-1
LU 17-0002
DRAFT: 02/17/2017
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 2 OF 2
permitted use in the building (it could not be in its own stand-alone building). She added that a
drive-through was not permitted.
Commissioner A. Brockman moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments
and adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order for LU 17-0002. Vice Chair Ward seconded
the motion and it passed 7:0.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 13
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
A request from the City of Lake Oswego for an amendment to the Community Development Code
to allow bakeries in the Industrial Park Zone. The affected sections are LOC 50.03.002.3,
Commercial, Mixed Use, Industrial and Special Purpose Districts Use Table, and LOC 50.03.003.6.g,
Use Specific Standards.
Ordinance 2736, which would enact these changes, is attached as Exhibit A-1.
II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Planning Goal:
Development (Community Development Code)
Policy A-1.b
Policy A-1.c
Policy A-1.i
Land Use Administration
Policy D-1
Policy D-6
APPLICANT
City of Lake Oswego
FILE NO.
LU 17-0002
LOCATION
Industrial Park (IP) Zone
STAFF
Jessica Numanoglu
DATE OF REPORT
January 31, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE
February 13, 2017
EXHIBIT D-1
LU 17-0002
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 2 OF 13
Community Culture Goal:
Civic Engagement
Policy 1
Inspiring Places and Spaces Goal:
Goal 1: Policy 1.b
Economic Vitality Goal:
Economic Development
Policy A-2
Policy A-3
Policy A-4
Policy A-7
Policy A-9
Employment Zones
Policy B-1
B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Title 4: Protection of Employment Areas, Metro Code Section 3.07.440
C. State Transportation Planning Rule
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
D. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code
LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing
LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision
III. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The proposed amendment was initiated by the City Council in response to a request by a
“production bakery” to locate in a tenant space in the IP zone. “Production bakeries,” as used in
this proposed code amendment, means a business that primarily manufactures and distributes
baked goods for off-site sale and consumption, but may include some accessory retail sales on-
site. “Bakeries,” are defined in the Community Development Code (CDC), LOC 50.10.003.2, as
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 3 OF 13
“a facility for the production, distribution, or retail or wholesale sale of baked goods,
primarily for consumption off site. The products may be prepared either on or off site. Such
use may include incidental on-site food and beverage consumption that complements
consumption of baked products.”
“Bakeries” are not currently a permitted use in the IP zone; however, other types of food
manufacturing, processing and distribution facilities could be allowed in the IP zone as “light
manufacturing” (LOC 50.10.003.2). Because the definition of bakeries is broad, it includes both
large production bakeries and small retail bakeries. Prior to the recent adoption of the Commercial
Code Streamlining amendments (LU 15-0035), there were four different listings for “bakeries” in
the Use Table (LOC 50.03.002.3), none of which were permitted in the IP zone. The bakery listings
were differentiated by whether the baked goods were manufactured on or off site and the size of
the facility. Bakeries were not defined at that time. The Commercial Code Streamlining
amendments collapsed all four of the bakery listings into one use type, “bakery,” added a
definition of that use (see above), and included use-specific standards to limit the size of bakeries
in certain zones. There were no changes to which zones bakeries were permitted in.
Due to the lack of a definition for “bakery” prior to the Commercial Code Streamlining
amendments, one might have considered whether “production baking” facilities were previously
distinct from the undefined “bakery” use, and thus permissible in the IP zone under either “light
manufacturing, processing or assembly of product” or “facilities for the manufacturing,
warehousing, processing or assembly of products.” It is not clear whether, and under which use a
production baking facility would have been permitted as the City was not previously called on to
make that interpretation; however, it is conceivable that such a use could have been differentiated
from a small retail bakery as a permitted “light manufacturing” use in the IP zone. After the
Commercial Code Streamlining amendments were adopted, the new definition of “bakery”
encompassed both small retail and production baking facilities, so there is no longer any ambiguity
in the meaning of bakery that would allow for an alternate interpretation; however, staff also finds
no legislative intent to specifically disallow production bakery use in the IP zone.
The proposed amendment would allow the broad range of “bakery” uses in the IP zone, but with a
2,000 sq. ft. size limitations on retail sales, a requirement that retails sales either co-locate in a
building with another permitted use or be accessory to a production bakery, and a prohibition
against drive-thru service, to be consistent with the purpose of the IP zone. The use-specific
standards match the limitations for accessory restaurant uses that are currently permitted in the
IP zone (see LOC 50.03.004.1.b.iv). This would allow small retail bakeries that are 2,000 sq. ft. or
less in size to be co-located with another permitted use in the IP zone or production bakeries of
any size, provided the accessory retail area does not exceed 2,000 sq. ft.
IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A. Newspaper Notice
On February 2, 2017 public notice of the proposed bakery amendment and Planning
Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 4 OF 13
B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice
As the proposed text amendment expands the list of permitted uses, no notice of
the proposal was required by ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) to owners of property in
the affected zones.
C. DLCD Notice
Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.16.c and ORS 197.610, staff provided required notice of
the proposed CDC text amendment to the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD).
D. Metro Notice
Pursuant to Metro Code 3.07.810 and .820, staff provided notice of the proposed
CDC text amendment to Metro not less than 35 days prior to the hearing date.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Planning Goal Policies:
Development (Community Development Code)
A-1. Maintain land use regulations and standards to:
***
b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired
neighborhood character;
c. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new
development on adjacent neighborhoods
***
i. Enhance opportunities for mixed use development in Employment Centers,
Town Centers, Commercial Corners, and appropriately zoned areas within
Neighborhood Villages.
Response: The IP zone is designated as an employment center in the
Comprehensive Plan and is located in the Southwest Employment Area Plan, a
special district plan incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan (SWEA Plan). According
to the Comprehensive Plan, the community’s vision for employment centers is to
encourage development that results in uses with higher employee concentrations
(Policy A-7(a), Economic Vitality chapter). In accordance with this vision, the goals
of the SWEA Plan include increasing job densities, making the district an attractive
business location with supportive uses such as small restaurants, and providing
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 5 OF 13
additional flexibility for property owners to meet evolving market demands (see
SWEA Plan Section 5, Land Use and Regulatory Structure).
In order to assure compatibility between development in the SWEA Plan District
and the surrounding neighborhoods, site and design standards for the district have
been adopted to buffer adjacent residential areas from industrial activities and land
uses and to provide a safe, efficient and effective transportation network for cars,
freight trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (see LOC 50.05.008, Southwest
Overlay District standards). Bakery development will be subject to these standards
the same as they are applied to all other types of development in the IP zone.
One of the SWEA Plan implementation actions is to change the permitted uses in
the IP zone, which was completed as part of the Commercial Code Streamlining
project in 2016 and included an amendment to allow restaurants (also includes
coffee shops and delis) as accessory uses throughout the IP zone. Accessory
restaurant uses cannot exceed 2,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area and must be
co-located in a building with another permitted use. In addition, drive-thru windows
are prohibited. (See SWEA Plan Section 6 Implementation, Regulatory Actions).
Small retail bakeries are substantially similar to accessory restaurant use in terms of
trip generation, parking, and hours of operation.
Trip Generation: The use, with restrictions on retail, is substantially similar
in terms of trip generation to accessory restaurants, which are permitted
in the IP zone subject to the same size and drive-thru limitations if also co-
located with another permitted use. The trip generation rate for a fast food
restaurant use without drive thru, which is permitted in the IP zone, is 26.15
vehicles per hour for the p.m. peak hour, per 1,000 square feet of building
area (ITE code 933). Bread/bagel shops (ITE code 939) have a slightly higher
trip generation of 28 vehicles per hour for the p.m. peak hour, per 1,000
square feet of building area; however, not all types of bakeries fit the
description of bread/bagel shops in the ITE manual (e.g., bakeries that
specialize in manufacturing single products primarily for wholesale without a
drive-thru would not fit the bagel/bread shop description).
Parking: Restaurants without a drive-thru window require 13.3 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area while specialty food stores, such as coffee,
bagels, juice bars (take-out food/drink primarily) require 9.9 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Light Manufacturing requires 1.6 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Production bakeries require parking for the
primary “bakery” use (akin to manufacturing) and any accessory uses, such
as retail.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 6 OF 13
Hours of Operation: Limited retail uses that support the higher employment
densities in the area would naturally constrain their operations to the hours
that provide service to those workers. Bakeries by contrast, are similar to
manufacturers in that their work shifts may not be limited to retail customer
hours.
Other types of large food production and processing facilities are already permitted
in the IP zone as “light manufacturing.” By adopting the same use-specific standards
as accessory restaurants to limit the size of the retail component of bakeries to
2,000 sq. ft., requiring retail components to be co-located in a building with another
permitted use in the zone, and prohibiting drive-thru windows, the amendment to
allow bakeries in the IP zone will assure the size and scale of the use is appropriate
for the SWEA Plan District as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and that the
traffic impacts and employee concentrations will be substantially similar to uses
already permitted in the SWEA Plan District, e.g., accessory restaurants and light
manufacturing.
The Comprehensive Plan defines mixed use broadly to include a variety of
complementary and integrated uses on a single tract of land. It lists residential,
office, retail, public and entertainment uses, but the list is not exhaustive and any
combination may constitute a “mix” of uses so long as it is on a single tract of land.
Adding bakeries to the list of allowed uses increases the options for mixed-use with
a focus on manufacturing with limited retail.
These criteria are met.
Land Use Administration
D-1. Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related
to land use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro,
federal agencies and special districts.
***
D-6. Legislative amendments may be initiated only by staff, the Planning
Commission or City Council. Any interested person may request that the
Planning Commission or City Council initiate a legislative amendment.
Response: This proposal includes public notice of the proposed text amendments
in compliance with adopted land use regulations. Staff has also provided notice of
the proposal to Metro and the DLCD.
The proposed amendment was initiated by the City Council in response to a
request by a prospective business.
These criteria are met.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 7 OF 13
Community Culture Chapter/ Civic Engagement Policies:
1. Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given
planning effort, and ensure those affected by a Plan have opportunities to
participate in the planning process.
Response: The amendments are being reviewed in a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and a public hearing will also be held before the City Council.
Notice of both hearings have or will be mailed to neighborhood and business
associations and other affected organizations.
This criterion is met.
Inspiring Places and Spaces Chapter Policies:
1. Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure:
***
b. New development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas:
i. Promotes a safe and attractive pedestrian environment;
ii. Reflects high-quality aesthetics, considering size, scale and bulk, color,
materials, architectural style and detailing, and landscaping; and
iii. Includes buffering and screening to protect residential uses and
neighborhoods.
Response: Policy 1.b applies to development standards, not uses. Nevertheless, the
existing development standards of the Southwest Overlay (applicable to IP zone
development) provide for a safe and attractive pedestrian environment and high-
quality building and site design, including landscaping, buffering and screening
abutting residential uses and neighborhoods.
Economic Vitality Chapter Policies:
Economic Development
A-2. Fully utilize existing buildings and maximize use of employment land
through the following:
a. Promote redevelopment of underutilized land; and
b. Optimize the development of vacant employment land.
Response: The proposed amendment promotes utilization of existing buildings and
redevelopment by adding a permitted use in the IP zone.
These criteria are met.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 8 OF 13
A-3. Provide flexibility for a diversity of spaces and sites to support the
opportunity for business incubation and employment growth.
A-4. Provide flexibility in employment zones to adapt to economic change.
Response: Currently, bakeries are not permitted in the IP zone, but other
types of food production and processing are permitted as “light
manufacturing.” The proposed amendment would remove this barrier to
food-based businesses that primarily manufacture and distribute baked
goods (e.g., cakes, bread, pastries, etc.), which was inadvertently created
by the Commercial Code Streamlining amendments when a broad
definition of “bakery” was adopted. The proposed amendment would treat
all types of food production and processing that meets the use-specific
standards of the IP zone the same.
These criteria are met.
***
A-7. Locate employment and commercial uses in designated areas at
appropriate scales and intensities, such as in Employment Centers, Town
Centers, Neighborhood Villages, and Commercial Corners:
a. Employment Centers focus primarily on higher-intensity employment
uses, with supporting retail and service uses, commercial office,
residential and cultural uses in select locations.
***
A-9. Utilize land for light industrial uses within the SW Employment District
and implement the special district plan that accommodates a range of
uses including light industrial, office and supporting retail.
Response: Please see the response under the Land Use Planning policy A-1, above.
Employment Zones
B-1 Provide opportunities for redevelopment and development in
employment zones while:
***
a. Providing required public facilities and services;
b. Addressing impacts such as noise, traffic, and visual aesthetics,
on adjacent land uses through site and building design;
c. Complying with design and aesthetic standards to promote
compatibility with Lake Oswego’s community character;
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 9 OF 13
d. Preserving natural resources and providing required open space;
e. Addressing the adequacy of all transportation modes to, from, and
within the development site;
f. Maintaining a street system which provides efficient connections
to transportation corridors and other activity centers including
Employment Centers, Town Centers, Neighborhood Villages, and
Commercial Corners;
g. Maintaining safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit
facilities/amenities that support efficient movements of people
to and from the site;
h. Promoting the efficient use of land by providing adequate* parking
for customers and employees, according to national
transportation standards;
i. Minimizing the impacts of traffic generated on adjoining
neighborhoods by routing traffic to major collectors;
j. Promoting shared street access, parking facilities, and pedestrian
connections with other businesses to provide more developable
land area and reduce traffic congestion, parking, and safety
problems.
Response: Bakery development will be subject to the adopted site design,
circulation, building design, Sensitive Lands, open space, and lot coverage
requirements that are applied to all other types of development in the IP zone.
These criteria are met.
B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
Title 4: Protection of Employment Areas, Metro Code Section 3.07.440
The IP zone in the SWEA Plan District is identified as Employment Land on Metro’s
Title 4 map. Employment Land is defined as areas of mixed employment that
include various types of manufacturing, distribution and warehousing uses,
commercial and retail development, as well as some residential development.
Retail uses should primarily serve the needs of the people working or living in the
immediate employment area, which is defined in the Metro Title through a square
footage limitation of 60,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area in a single building, or
commercial retail uses with a total of not more than 60,000 square feet of retail
sales area on a single lot or parcel, or on contiguous lots or parcels, including those
separated only by transportation right-of-way (defined in LOC 50.10.003.2 as
“adjacent”).
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 10 OF 13
Response: The proposed amendment complies with the Metro Title 4 restrictions
on retail use by including a 2,000 sq. ft. limitation on the size of accessory retail
sales of the bakery products and a limit on the cumulative square-footage of retail
businesses or buildings to 60,000 sq. ft. on a single lot or parcel or on adjacent
lots or parcels.
C. State Transportation Planning Rule
The City of Lake Oswego is required to comply with the State’s Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) [OAR 660-012-0060]. The purpose of the transportation
planning rule is to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system; to coordinate a land use and transportation system that
supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that will avoid air
pollution, and traffic and livability problems; ensure a mix of transportation
facilities and services to ensure economic, sustainable and environmentally sound
and accessibility for all Oregonians; and to ensure coordination among levels of
government and transit providers.
If an amendment to land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of the TPR, unless the amendment is allowed
under section (3), (9) or (10) of the TPR. A land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Response: No changes to the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility are proposed.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Response: No changes to standards implementing a functional classification
of an existing or planned transportation facility are proposed.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C), below, based
on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period
identified in the adopted TSP [Transportation System Plan]. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be
generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the
amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to,
transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or
completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 11 OF 13
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP
or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified
in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Response: The proposed amendment would allow “bakeries,” but with a limit
on the size of the retail component to 2,000 sq. ft., a requirement that any
retail use is co-located in a building with another permitted use in the zone or
is accessory to the production bakery use, and a prohibition on drive-thru
facilities. As discussed under Land Use Policy A-1 on pages 4-5, above, with
these restrictions, the use is substantially similar in terms of trip generation
to accessory restaurants, an allowed use in the IP zone.
Other types of food production and processing facilities are already
permitted in the IP zone as “light manufacturing.” The proposed amendment
would correct the inadvertent exclusion of businesses that primarily
manufacture and distribute baked goods (e.g., cakes, bread, pastries, etc.)
when a broad definition of “bakery” was adopted with the Commercial Code
Streamlining amendments. When the definition of “bakery” was adopted,
there was no finding or legislative intent to exclude production bakeries
because they were inconsistent with uses intended for Employment Centers.
The proposed amendment would treat all types of food production and
processing that meets the use-specific standards of the IP zone the same.
D. Lake Oswego Community Development Code Procedural Requirements
LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing
LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision
Findings:
The Community Development Code 50.07.003.16.a defines “legislative decisions” to
include amendments to Comprehensive Plan policies. Public hearings by the
Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council for “legislative
decisions” are required to have at least ten days prior published notice, per LOC
50.07.003.16.d.iii and 50.07.003.3.c. Notice is defined as being published in a
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 12 OF 13
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Oswego at least ten days in
advance of the hearing, and mailed at least ten days in advance to the Commission
for Citizen Involvement and to all recognized neighborhood associations. The notice
shall include:
i. The time, date, and place of the public hearing;
ii. A brief description of the proposed legislative amendment; and
iii. A phone number for obtaining additional information.
Notice of the public hearing was posted at City Hall, the Adult Community Center,
and the Library on January 26, 2017. The hearing notice will be published in the
Lake Oswego Review newspaper on February 2, 2017. Legislative notice was mailed
per LOC requirements on January 24, 2017.
The criteria for a legislative decision are addressed in Sections A-D, above. The City
notified DLCD and Metro of the proposed action 35 days before the initial
evidentiary hearings.
Conclusion:
Staff concludes that the Community Development Code (CDC) procedural
requirements for the proposed legislative decision, including public notice
requirements for the public hearing, are met per the applicable CDC criteria.
VI. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendment is in compliance with City Comprehensive Plan policies, state
laws, and statewide planning goals.
Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends that the Commission
recommend adoption of the Code amendment stated in Exhibit A-1 by City Council.
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Draft Ordinance 2736, dated 01/31/17
Attachment 1:
• City Council Findings and Conclusions (Not yet available)
Attachment 2:
• Proposed Draft Code Amendments with track-changes and commentary (for
reference only), 01/31/17
• Proposed Draft Code Amendments, 01/31/17
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0002 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 13 OF 13
B. Findings, Conclusion and Order
B-1 Draft Planning Commission Findings, Conclusion and Order, 01/31/17
(Please note the Ordinance and Attachments A and B referenced in the Findings are
not included. Refer to Ordinance 2736 and Attachment B above [Exhibit A-1]).
C. Minutes
[No current exhibits]
D. Staff Reports
[No current exhibits]
E. Graphics/Plans
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
F. Written Materials
[No current exhibits]
G. Letters
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES
Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be
found by visiting the project web page for LU 17-0002.
Use the link below to visit the City’s “Project” page. In the “Search” box enter LU 17-0002 then
press “Submit”:
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/projects
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director
Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership
SUBJECT: Consent to Assignment of the Engineering Contract for the Water Treatment
Plant Expansion Project: Work Order 206.
DATE: March 7, 2017
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Consent to Assignment of the Engineering
Contract for the Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant to Stantec Consulting Services Inc. [Work
Order 206].
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2011, City Council awarded an engineering contract to Montgomery Watson-Harza
Americas, Inc. (MWHA), a subsidiary of MWH Global, Inc., a global engineering and construction
company. MWHA has now been merged into Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
Stantec, Inc. See Attachment 1.
MWHA/SCS request approval of the assignment of the engineering contract to Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc.
DISCUSSION
On April 26, 2011, MWHA was named the Engineer of Record for the Water Treatment Plant
Expansion Project.
On July 16, 2013, City Council awarded a public improvement contract to Slayden Construction
Group, Inc. (SCG) for construction of the Water Treatment Plant expansion project. In
December 2015, SCG was acquired by MWH Global, Inc., with the construction contract
proposed to be carried out by a subsidiary, Slayden Constructors, Inc. (SCI). Because this would
7.1
Page 2
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
result in the both the engineering and construction contracts being performed by subsidiaries
of the same entity, MWH Global, conflict of interest protocols were worked out to maintain the
independence of each fulfilling their respective professional and contractual requirements
under the contracts. On March 1, 2016, City Council approved the assignment of the
construction contract to SCI.
Now, MWHA is being acquired by Stantec, Inc., with the engineering services for the Water
Treatment Plant to be performed through its subsidiary Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Stantec has also acquired as a subsidiary entity Slayden Constructors, Inc. (SCI), which will
continue to perform the construction services for the Water Treatment Plant.
The Project Director has worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to review and revise the
assignment document to ensure the City’s (LOTWP’s) interests are preserved through the
assignment process and ultimately, project completion, i.e., the same MWHA engineering staff
and management will remain on the Project under Stantec Consulting Services, and the
contractual obligations are being assumed by Stantec Consulting Services. The Conflict of
Interest Guidelines and Mitigation Plan previously agreed to when MWH Global acquired the
construction services, through Slayden Constructors, Inc. (SCI), will remain in place
(Attachments 3 and 4).
Our proposed revisions to the Consent to Assignment (Attachment 2) have been acknowledged
and accepted by MWH Global, MWHA, SCI, and Stantec Consulting Services, and are ready for
signature by the City Manager, upon Council authorization to do so.
RECOMMENDATION
The Project Director recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Consent
to Assignment of the Engineering Contract for the Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant to
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. [Work Order 206].
ATTACHMENTS
1. Stantec Announcement
2. Consent to Assignment of Engineering Contract
3. MWHA / SCI Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Guidelines
4. MWHA / SCI Organizational Conflicts of Interest Mitigation Plan
December 23, 2016
Joel Komarek
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Reference: Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant
Dear Mr.Komarek:
As you may be aware, on May 6th, 2016, MWH Global Inc., and its subsidiaries were acquired by Stantec Inc.
As part of the on-going integration of the service offerings of the combined MWH and Stantec companies,
effective January 1, 2017, MWH Americas, Inc., (“MWH”) will be merged into its affiliated corporation Stantec
Consulting Services Inc., (“Stantec”) with Stantec as the surviving corporation. Stantec will maintain MWH’s
present office locations with no interruption in operations or client services, and all future projects and
operations will be transitioned to the Stantec name in the upcoming months. The Stantec community unites
approximately 22,000 employees working in over 400 locations across six continents. Our work —engineering,
architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, project management,
and project economics, from initial project concept and planning through design, construction, and
commissioning—begins at the intersection of community, creativity, and client relationships.
Stantec’s vision includes working with the best clients on the best projects and providing the best services.
Accordingly, please be assured that the continuity of your current project will be unaffected by this new
arrangement. The caliber of the personnel currently working on your project will not change and, except for the
assignment requested herein, no other aspect will be affected.
In this regard, we request your approval to assign all existing contracts in the name of MWH to Stantec. Kindly
indicate your consent to the request for assignment by returning a duplicate copy of this letter, executed on
behalf of City of Lake Oswego to Ms. Windy Dunbar, MWH, 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado,
80202. Please don’t hesitate to call me at 503-220-5423 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
MWH Americas, Inc.
Dick Talley
Area Manager
Enclosures: Client Letter.PDF
SCSI W9.PDF
The undersigned hereby consents to the assignment of the Contract noted above to Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. effective January 1, 2017.
Joel Komarek
Project Director
City of Lake Oswego
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Guidelines
City of Lake Oswego (LOTWP)
Project: WO 206 Water Treatment Plant Expansion (Project)
Point of Contact:
Effective Date: February 18, 2016
1.0 Background
LOTWP previously retained MWH Americas (MWHA), a subsidiary of MWH, to provide
engineering services related to construction of its Water Treatment Plant and contracted with
Slayden Construction Group, Inc., (SCG) for construction of the Project. MWHA is the engineer
of record for the Project. In such roles, and as separate entities, each provided independent
services to LOTWP, in accordance with their respective contracts. Specifically, MWHA
provided independent engineering services for the Project in reviewing the work of SCG,
pursuant to the terms of the construction contract between SCG and LOTWP.
SCG is now in the process of selling substantially all of its assets to MWH Constructors, Inc.,
(MWHC), and SCG will now operate as a new subsidiary to MWHC, known as Slayden
Constructors, Inc., (SCI). MWH seeks LOTWP's consent to assignment of the SCG construction
contract to MWHC / SCI. MWHC is a subsidiary to MWH.
References below to MWH shall include MWHA, MWHC and SCI, except when MWHA or
SCI are specifically referenced.
Although operating through SCI as a new entity, SCG project teams, subcontractors, and staff
will remain in place, with all the same personnel, equipment and resources to assure a seamless
transition for LOTWP. However, MWHA is committed to providing independent engineering
services for LOTWPs project in the same manner and professional separation of engineering
services from construction services.
MWH’s overall internal goal is to avoid, neutralize or mitigate any organizational conflicts of
interests in a manner that protects MWH’s ability to do business, and to assure all professional and
ethical obligations are being met for all service offerings across the organization.
MWH’s policy is to engage in business transactions free of conflicts of interest that could adversely
affect the interests of MWH or MWH’s clients. MWH employees are expected to help MWH avoid
organizational conflicts of interest. MWH employees in management positions are responsible for
ensuring that appropriate policies and procedures are implemented to avoid incurring impermissible
OCIs within their areas of responsibility.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this guideline is to describe the basic principles of the organizational conflict of
interest (“OCI”) restrictions for MWH. This plan is for the above-referenced Project, and applies to
ATTACHMENT 3
2
MWH Americas, Inc. (“MWHA”), MWH Constructors, Inc., (“MWHC”), and SCI. All MWH and
subsidiary employees are responsible for maintaining awareness of OCI risks so they may be
addressed in a timely manner.
3.0 Definitions
“Organizational Conflict of Interest” – A situation in which an MWH Client is at risk of receiving
biased performance from MWH because of other business interests, or where MWH may have an
unfair competitive advantage. This includes activities or relationships in which MWH (a) is or might
be impaired in its objectivity in performing services on behalf of a client; or (b) has an unfair
competitive advantage; or (c) there is a perception or appearance of an impropriety that can be
mitigated or avoided through following developed OCI guidelines and protocols.
4.0 References
4.1 National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics for Engineers.
4.2 MWH Code of Conduct.
5.0 General Guidelines
5.1 The risks of biased performance of the engineering services work raise OCI
concerns.
5.2 Core Principles. While government regulations provide several specific examples of
organizational conflicts of interest, those examples are not all-inclusive. The core
principles of concern are:
A. MWHA must avoid situations in which there is a risk of bias (e.g.
performing a contract in a manner that would result in LOTWP receiving
potentially biased work). In such situations, there may be an OCI that must
be addressed. MWHA must not change its submittal review s, design
standards or roles to treat MWHC and SCI differently than any other
third-party contractor or entity. Protocols must be developed to assure
that these are “arms-length” relationships no different than MWHA’s
role when dealing with a third party contractor. MWHA has a history of
performing its independent engineering services separate from the SCG's
contractor's concerns / issues. MWH and LOTWP expect that MWHA will
continue to perform its engineering services in the same manner, and with
the same professional engineering independence, as MWHA has in the past
notwithstanding the corporate relationship of MWH, MWHA, and SCI. The
past shall be one measure to demonstrate to LOTWP that the future MWHA
engineering services for the Project are, and shall continue to be
independent from SCI's performance of the construction contract.
3
5.3 Other OCI Considerations and Factors. The following items should be
considered in assessing OCIs:
A. OCI concerns arise based solely upon risk. There is no requirement of a
showing of actual bias. Just the appearance of an OCI is enough to require
careful assessment of the matter before MWH acts.
B. Based on the above understanding, the following attached Plan has been
established for this Project.
4
Exhibit A
1. Client's Project Director may, upon reasonable belief that an OCI exists or could arise
that would reasonably raise questions whether SCI or MWHA was not performing or
would likely not perform work under the Client's contract without consideration of the
possible impact upon the other, or any other MWH entity:
a. Notify SCI and MWHA of Project Directors determination of possible or actual
OCI;
b. Consult with SCI and/or MWHA as to whether an appropriate internal procedure
may be agreed upon which would reduce the effect of an OCI upon the Project;
c. If the Client Project Director reasonably determines that there is or could exist an
OCI that would have a more than a de minimis effect upon the Project, the Client
may retain a suitable independent entity to perform the work. SCI or MWHA, as
appropriate, may suggest within 3 business days of notice of the Client Project
Directors determination up to three suitable independent entities to perform the
work but such suggestions shall not limit the Client's selection of an independent
entity to perform the work. All costs and expenses of the independent entity shall
be the obligation of SCI or MWHA, as appropriate, and may be offset from any
monies owing to SCI and MWHA. The reasonableness of the charges by the
independent entity may be disputed in the same manner as any dispute under the
respective SCI or MWHA contract.
MWH
City of Lake Oswego (LOTWP)
Project: Water Treatment Plant Expansion
Organizational Conflicts of Interest
Mitigation Plan
February 18, 2016
ATTACHMENT 4
SLAYDEN/MWH OCI Mitigation Plan
Contents
I. Potential OCI Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 1
II. MWH OCI Process............................................................................................................................................. 1
III. OCI Identification and Notification Post Selection ......................................................................................... 2
IV. Mitigation Procedures ........................................................................................................................................ 3
a. Firewall Procedures. ................................................................................................................................. 3
b. OCI Avoidance. ......................................................................................................................................... 3
V. Responsibilities .................................................................................................................................................. 3
a. OCI Plan Managers. ................................................................................................................................. 3
VI. Subcontractors and Joint Venture Partners ................................................................................................... 4
VII. OCI Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................... 4
EXHIBIT A .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
EXHIBIT B .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
SLAYDEN/MWH OCI Mitigation Plan
MWH
City of Lake Oswego (LOTWP)
Project: Work Order 206 Water Treatment Plant Expansion
ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
MITIGATION PLAN
This Organizational Conflicts of Interest (“OCI”) Mitigation Plan sets forth the MWH Americas, Inc.
(“MWHA”), MWH Constructors, Inc., (MWHC), and Slayden Constructors, Inc. (SCI),
management approach to mitigating actual or potential OCIs relating to the Project (Project) on
behalf of LOTWP.
I. Potential OCI Mitigation
a. MWHA is the engineer of record for LOTWP, for the Project. LOTWP previously
retained MWHA, a subsidiary of MWH, to provide engineering services related to
construction of its Water Treatment Plant and contracted with SCG for construction
of the Project. In such roles, and as separate entities, each provided independent
services to LOTWP, in accordance with their respective contracts. Specifically,
MWHA provided independent engineering services for the Project in reviewing the
work of SCG, pursuant to the terms of the construction contract between SCG and
LOTWP. SCG is now in the process of selling substantially all of its assets to MWH
Constructors, Inc., (MWHC), and SCG will now operate as a new subsidiary to
MWHC, known as SCI. MWH seeks LOTWP's consent to assignment of the SCG
construction contract to MWHC / SCI. MWHC is a subsidiary to MWH.
b. The employees and consultants for MWHA and SCI for the Project are referenced
in the attached Exhibit A. Each engineering and construction supervision employee
or consultant, and management employee or consultant of either entity will
acknowledge their obligations regarding this OCI using the form attached hereto
as Exhibit B. Any proposed changes in the respective MWHA and SCI personnel
to whom this OCI shall apply shall be communicated and approved by the
designated OCI representative for MWHA and SCI, who for this Project are
___________________ for MWHA and _________________ for SCI.
c. The designated MWHA or SCI OCI representatives shall notify Joel Komarek on
behalf of LOTWP when it identifies an actual or potential OCI creating a potential
bias that cannot be avoided or neutralized in accordance with contract
requirements and the OCI Plan. The MWHA or SCI OCI representative will provide
to the LOTWP representative the facts upon which MWH based its assessment
and provide recommendations for an action plan to resolve OCIs, as required.
II. MWH OCI Process
a. MWH establishes this OCI Plan to avoid any potential OCIs that may result. The
OCI Plan establishes uniform procedures to mitigate actual or potential OCIs.
b. MWH’s overall OCI Plan includes the following processes to prevent OCIs that
may create a potential or actual bias, as explained in further detail below:
2 OCI Mitigation Plan
i. Up-front OCI assessment using MWH’s OCI identification and notification
process;
ii. Implementation of the OCI Plan, including a firewall, to mitigate potential
OCIs;
iii. Appropriate assignment of responsibilities;
iv. Flow down of prime contract OCI clauses to teammates and subcontractors;
v. OCI awareness training; and
vi. Monitoring the OCI process.
III. OCI Identification and Notification Post Selection
a. MWHA and SCI OCI representatives will develop for LOTWP’s approval
referenced tasks or responsibilities related to the MWHA and SCI roles, and
whether an actual or potential OCI creates a bias.
b. MWH utilizes a specific process to assist in the identification of actual or potential
OCIs, as follows:
i. Any anticipated or known interface between SCI and MWHA through
activities such as value engineering, submittal and RFI reviews, or any
technical reviews or engineering services through construction and
commissioning will be identified by MWHA and SCI’s OCI representatives.
ii. The OCI listing will be updated as OCIs are reported, and LOTWP shall be
notified. The OCI listing shall be available for review semi-monthly, and
additionally at LOTWP's request.
iii. Where activities, tasks, or other roles between MWHA and SCI have the
potential to create an actual or perceived OCI independent of MWHA’s
standard communication protocols, the following will be identified:
1. MWHA and SCI’s OCI representatives will identify additional
recommended steps to prevent an OCI.
2. The activity or task will be included on a schedule with specific
mitigation steps to be agreed to within a set time frame.
3. Where appropriate, MWH will follow firewall procedures discussed
below.
3 OCI Mitigation Plan
IV. Mitigation Procedures
a. Firewall Procedures.
i. Where appropriate, and an actual or potential OCI are identified, the following
firewall procedures will be used.
1. Designated MWHA and SCI personnel and consultants under
Exhibit A that are subject to the firewall and confidentiality
requirements will be advised and prevent improper communications
between MWHA and SCI.
2. MWHA and SCI employees personnel and consultants not listed in
Exhibit A will not receive any sensitive information, which includes
information that could create an actual or potential conflict of interest.
3. MWHA and SCI employees personnel and consultants listed in
Exhibit A will not distribute any sensitive information.
a. Documents that should not be made available to all MWH
personnel must be protected from disclosure. The
information protected from disclosure will be secured at all
times. Employees who are restricted from accessing
information shall not be permitted access to the secured
electronic folders or files containing such information.
i. All electronic information could create an actual or
potential OCI will be password protected. Each MWHA
and SCI OCI representative is responsible for
controlling access to the information and assuring
proper electronic access or controls are in place for
such information.
b. OCI Avoidance.
In the event MWHA or SCI identifies an OCI that cannot be mitigated using the above
procedures or obtain a waiver, neither MWHA nor SCI will provide the resulting services
unless a full and complete disclosure of the OCI has been made to LOTWP, and written
waiver by LOTWP has been issued.
V. Responsibilities
a. OCI Plan Managers.
i. The MWHA and SCI OCI representatives shall administer this OCI Plan.
ii. The responsibilities of the OCI representatives include, but are not limited to,
the following:
4 OCI Mitigation Plan
1. Maintain current copies of the OCI Plan and all exhibits.
2. Update personnel subject to the OCI referenced in the attached
Exhibit A.
3. Distribute updated copies of Exhibit A to all employees working on
the Project.
4. Ensure training is conducted.
5. Maintain an attendance sheet for all OCI training.
6. Maintain the Exhibit B acknowledgment forms signed by Employees.
7. Work with MWH’s Ethics and Compliance Office to ensure this OCI
Plan continues to reflect compliance with MWH’s policies.
8. Implement terms in contractual agreements to appropriately address
OCIs.
9. Report any concerns or violations relating to this OCI Plan directly to
the MWH Ethics and Compliance Office.
10. Ensure Exhibit B includes all employees who are subject to the
firewall.
11. Notify the Compliance Officers concerning any violations of this OCI
Plan.
VI. Subcontractors and Joint Venture Partners
Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure subcontractors and joint venture partners
comply with OCI requirements, consistent with this OCI Plan and MWH policies. MWH
subcontractors and joint venture partners will be briefed regarding any concern regarding
an actual or potential OCI where appropriate. This briefing will contain specific
requirements for the control of the relevant sensitive information to other
MWH/subcontractor members or partners.
VII. OCI Monitoring
a. The MWHA and SCI OCI representatives are required to ensure compliance with
the OCI Plan.
b. MWH will continuously monitor the requirements pursuant to this OCI Plan to
determine if compliance requires modifications. Additionally, changes within the
MWH corporate structure will be considered to ascertain if there are requirements
essential to maintaining the OCI Plan as an effective OCI mitigation tool.
SLAYDEN/MWH OCI Mitigation Plan
EXHIBIT A
MWH
Individuals Subject to OCI Firewall
MWHA Name MWHC Name
Richard Talley with
responsibility for
compliance with Plan on
behalf of all MWHA
personnel
NA - Richard Talley to
assume responsibility to
coordinate and ensure
compliance with
counterpart at LOTWP
From:Jan Castle
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Stafford traffic
Date:Friday, March 03, 2017 11:42:53 AM
Dear Council,
I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the McVey/South Shore Neighborhood
Association regarding the traffic impact on both McVey Ave. and State Street from the
development of Stafford. Metro’s findings to answer the remand make no mention of traffic
in and out of the North end of the Triangle, although they wax quite eloquently about how
nicely new neighborhoods could be connected to existing surrounding ones via street
improvements, trails and walking paths.
I understand that you are asking Metro and the county to include the cities in drafting the IGA
that will govern the development of this area, and I will line up neighbors to testify that, since
the findings do not address traffic through Lake Oswego, it is imperative that the IGA give the
final say on resolving those issues to the cities.
Since the solution to North end traffic would be for a city to annex land and designate it for
rural uses rather than urban density, I would ask you to make sure that a city could actually
create a rural zone in an area that is intended for urban density. My concern is prompted by
this statement from Martha Fritzie, the Clackamas County planner in charge of Stafford
development in an email to me dated 2/28/17 as a clarification of why the county cannot
rezone land into smaller lots as recommended by the Hamlet’s Compromise Plan:
Ultimately all lands in an urban reserve are intended to be planned for urban levels of
development, which would require the land eventually be rezoned, but only after being
brought into the urban growth boundary and annexing into a city. The city would then
apply an urban zone.
So my question would be, can the city apply a rural zone? Please clarify this question in your
Study Session next Tuesday. I’ll be watching at home unless I decide to come keep you
company!
Thanks very much,
Jan Castle
RESOLUTION 17-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ENDORSING THE LAKE
OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND MEASURE
WHEREAS, our Lake Oswego schools are one of the most highly valued assets and a cornerstone
of our community; and,
WHEREAS, the high quality of our public schools draws families to Lake Oswego and contributes
significantly to our community’s quality of life and high property values; and,
WHEREAS, 12 of the 17 schools and facilities are over 50 years old; and,
WHEREAS, the student population is projected to increase by over 13% in the next several years;
and,
WHEREAS, the aging conditions of the schools and facilities is not providing the students with the
most innovative and modern school environment and technologies; and,
WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego School District has conducted an extensive multi-year outreach to
the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego’s School District Board of Directors is submitting to voters at the
May 16th, 2017 election, a $187 million general obligation bond measure to upgrade, construct,
modernize and improve schools and facilities, to be paid over a period not to exceed 26 years at
the approximate rate of $1.25 per $1,000 of assessed value; and
WHEREAS, the measure will include significant citizen accountability and community oversight
for bond expenditures;
WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego School District’s Board of Directors has assured the City Council of
Lake Oswego that the School District will be fiscally responsible with the funds received from the
bond measure;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The Lake Oswego City Council endorses the Lake Oswego School District bond
measure to be presented at the May 16th, 2017 election
Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 7th day of
March, 2017.
9.1
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
David Powell, City Attorney
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Kent Studebaker, Chair
Scott Lazenby, Executive Director
FROM: Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary
SUBJECT: Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
DATE: February 28, 2017
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
1. November 1, 2016, Special Meeting Minutes
2. February 7, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes
13.1
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4
November 1, 2016
LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
MINUTES
November 1, 2016
14. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to
order at 9:16 p.m. following the regular City Council meeting on November 1, 2016, in the
City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Gustafson, Manz, Buck, Gudman,
Collins, and O'Neill
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne-
Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary; Brant Williams, Redevelopment
Director; and Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager
____________________________________________________________________
15. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Report and Attachments
15.1 July 19, 2016, Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes
15.2 September 20, 2016, Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes
Board Member Manz moved to approve the minutes as written. Board Member Gudman
seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members
Gustafson, Manz, Buck, Gudman, Collins, and O’Neill voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
16. RESOLUTIONS
16.1 LORA Resolution 16-07, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
(LORA) Making Appointments to the LORA Budget Committee
Report and Attachment
ATTACHMENT 1
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
November 1, 2016
Chair Studebaker moved to approve Resolution 16-07. Board Member Gudman seconded
the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members
Manz, Buck, Gudman, Collins, and O’Neill voting ‘aye’. Board Member Gustafson voted
‘no’. (6-1)
16.2 Resolution 16-08, A Resolution of the Board of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment
Agency Authorizing Amendments to the 2014 Outdoor Dining License with Oswego
Investors, LLC to Provide for a Public Market on the Sundeleaf Plaza Terrace on
Wednesday Afternoons from June through September
Report and Attachments
Mr. Williams explained that the Resolution would authorize a fairly minor amendment to the
Outdoor Dining License for the owner of the Lake Theater and Café. It would provide for a public
market on a portion of Sundeleaf Plaza, as shown in the Staff report (Redevelopment Agency
Report and Attachments). He noted that the amendment would take effect immediately upon
Board approval, but operation would not begin until summer 2017. The Board was reminded that
the City Manager would have authority to alter the hours of operation as needed.
Board Member Buck asked about the vendors’ use of City electricity or other resources at the
park. In brief discussion, Mr. Williams indicated that services would likely be provided by the
Lake Theater, but if City services were available and needed by the market, the Theater would
be required to pay for them.
Additional discussion followed a question from Board Member Buck about payment of vendor
fees for use of the park. Mr. Williams advised that the City would not be receiving vendor fees
for this market, which might be considered a trial situation; adjustments could be made later, if
desired. Board Member Buck expressed support for the Theater owner’s idea, but wanted these
vendors to be on an equal footing with the Farmers’ Market vendors who are required to pay fees.
After responding to additional questions, Mr. Williams reiterated that the fee issue could be
revisited.
Chair Studebaker moved to adopt Resolution 16-08. Board Member Collins seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members
Gustafson, Manz, Buck, Gudman, Collins, and O’Neill voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
17. BOARD BUSINESS
17.1 Architectural and Engineering Services for New Police Facility and City Hall
Rehabilitation Project
Report
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
November 1, 2016
Attachment 1 to Report
Attachment 2 to Report
Mr. Wheeler reviewed the background of the Police facility project, leading to the City’s purchase
of three parcels adjacent to City Hall, as discussed in the Redevelopment Agency Report and the
related Attachment 1. In response to LORA’s May 2016 issuance of a Request for Proposal
(RFP), three bids had been received for architectural and engineering services for the new Police
facility and City Hall rehabilitation project. A team of City staff had conducted a qualification-
based process with specific selection criteria and had determined Mackenzie to be the highest-
ranked firm.
After acknowledging the strong qualifications and extensive experience of the Mackenzie team,
he highlighted key aspects of the contract. The negotiated scope and fee includes design and
engineering services for both the Police facility project and the rehabilitation of City Hall. An
important goal in setting the scope was to coordinate the two designs, he noted; the needed
repairs to exterior windows and walls of City Hall were included in the RFP. The contract before
the Board includes an initial conditions assessment of City Hall, which will provide insight in
determining direction for the building design. The negotiated contract amount of approximately
$1.5 million is largely for services related to the Police facility, but includes $120,000 for the
conditions assessment of City Hall. The current total estimated budget for the Police facility is
$15 million and the City Hall rehabilitation estimate is between $5 and $6 million, he reported.
In concluding, Mr. Wheeler indicated that Staff would be returning to the next Board meeting to
discuss options for the retail and public uses to be programmed in the new building. He expressed
Staff’s hope for approval of the contract award to Mackenzie.
Board Member Buck asked if the $15 million total included land-acquisition costs; Mr. Wheeler
indicated that these were not included. In brief discussion of funding for the contract under
consideration, Mr. Lazenby indicated that Urban Renewal funds would be used for this
architectural work. Staff believed this was appropriate because the main emphasis related to
appearance and compatibility. He noted that the question of funding the full repairs was still
before the Board and was on the agenda for the upcoming study session.
Board Member Gudman moved to authorize the Executive Director to sign a contract with
Mackenzie for architectural and engineering services for the new Police facility and City
Hall rehabilitation project. Board Member Collins seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members
Gustafson, Manz, Buck, Gudman, Collins, and O’Neill voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
Board Member Gudman offered additional perspective, reflecting on achievement of
infrastructure-related goals over the past six years or so. In addition to completed projects, he
discussed numerous initiatives that were well underway, along with planned funding to support
infrastructure over the next five years. Despite initial concerns about the complexity of the long
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4
November 1, 2016
list of projects, he suggested that the Board and the City Council could take pride in their focus
on infrastructure improvement, particularly as the Police facility and City Hall work moves forward.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Studebaker adjourned the LORA Board meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ON __________________
Kent Studebaker, Chair
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3
February 7, 2017
LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
MINUTES
February 7, 2017
12. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to
order at 9:21 p.m. following the regular City Council meeting on February 7, 2017, in the
City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck,
and O’Neill
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne-
Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary; Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager
Others Present: Jeff Humphreys, Landon Harman, and Caitlin Cranley, Mackenzie
______________________________________________________________________
13. BOARD BUSINESS
13.1 City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Report and Attachments
Mr. Lazenby provided brief background on the plans for upgrading of the City Hall building
exterior. Analysis had led to the determination that any prospect of replacing the current
lightweight exterior with heavier materials would require extensive changes to the structure. His
recommendation was not to do so, but Staff wished to have direction from the Board.
Mr. Wheeler introduced Mr. Humphreys, Director of Architecture with Mackenzie and principal for
the City project. Referencing the extensive data included in the Redevelopment Agency Report
(Report and Attachments), Mr. Wheeler noted that the team would return in a month’s time to
provide more detail and cost estimates. The Board had the opportunity now to discuss the
findings and current estimates provided. In summary, he explained, to avoid the costs of
substantial structural and seismic retrofitting, the City could replace the current building skin with
lightweight material comparable to the current skin. In the analysis of costs for replacement of
the exterior and windows, Mackenzie had found that the most recent estimate, from 2015, had
not captured various elements. Further, he noted, the full cost implications would not be known
until the extent of underlying damage was understood. Mackenzie is now working on preparing
refined cost estimates for replacement of the skin, as well as for the full structural and seismic
ATTACHMENT 2
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3
February 7, 2017
upgrades and the voluntary upgrades mentioned in the report. He emphasized that no decision
was needed from the Board at this time.
Mr. Humphreys explained that, in addition to the Police facility project, Mackenzie had been
charged with considering options for the exterior of City Hall. He detailed their finding that the
building lacks the capacity for a heavier material than the present one, essentially consistent with
previous analyses. He discussed and compared some of the earlier approaches (Attachment 2)
to the Mackenzie analysis, which included both structural and building envelope considerations.
He discussed their cost projections, based on Rough Order of Magnitude (Attachment 6), detailing
items that had been excluded from the scope of the 2015 estimates and responding to Board
members’ questions.
Board Member Gudman requested information on 'all-in’ cost, i.e., to include deferred-
maintenance items, in the next scheduled presentation. Mr. Wheeler confirmed that Mackenzie
was in the process of preparing this information. Mr. Humphreys responded to additional
questions about the analysis approach related to Attachment 6.
Board Member LaMotte described concerns about vibrations in the building, asking if any
structural analysis had been done beyond the seismic assessment. Mr. Harman, Mackenzie's
structural engineer assigned to the project, provided information, indicating that the assessment
was limited to seismic performance.
In response to questions from Board Member Kohlhoff, Mr. Wheeler clarified that the City would
be receiving cost estimates from Mackenzie for three different scenarios: (1) replacement of the
skin only to address the water intrusion problems; (2) replacement of the skin plus the listed
voluntary upgrades and deferred-maintenance items; and (3) if the Board decides to proceed with
design changes while keeping the core of the building intact, a scenario that would include the
substantial structural and seismic upgrades that would be necessary. Member Kohlhoff
suggested that it would be reasonable for the Board also to consider costs for a new building.
Discussion ensued regarding a rough calculation of cost for a new City Hall building. Ms. Cranley,
Mackenzie's assigned project manager, discussed aspects of the current cost summary
(Attachment 6) and other considerations related to costs of a new building.
Board Member Buck initiated discussion of challenges under both the new construction and full
seismic upgrade scenarios. Mr. Harman elaborated on Mackenzie’s assessment of the extensive
upgrades that would be needed to bring the existing building up to current seismic standards. He
also discussed a set of separate options for voluntary upgrades that would improve seismic
performance. In concluding Board discussion of design, seismic, and safety considerations,
Members LaMotte and Gudman emphasized the need to make a decision after considering all
of the analyses.
14. BOARD CONSENT AGENDA
14.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes
14.1.1 November 15, 2016, Special Meeting
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3
February 7, 2017
Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
Report and Attachment
14.2 LORA Resolution 17-01, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
(LORA) Approving Changes to the Term Expiration Date for Budget Committee
Members
Motion: Move to adopt LORA Resolution 17-01.
Report and Attachment
END CONSENT AGENDA
Board Member Gudman moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Board Member Manz
seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members
Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, and O'Neill voting ‘aye’. (7-0)
15. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Studebaker adjourned the LORA Board meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ON __________________
Kent Studebaker, Chair
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Kent Studebaker, Chair
Members of the Redevelopment Agency
Scott Lazenby, Executive Director
FROM: Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager
City Manager’s Office
SUBJECT: Owner’s Representation Services for New Police Facility and City Hall
Rehabilitation Project
DATE: February 17, 2017
SUGGESTED MOTION
Award a contract to Day CPM Services, LLC for a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000 to provide
Owner’s Representation Services for the New Police Facility and City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The use of owner’s representatives is common for large construction projects where staff
expertise, experience, and availability may be limited. A project management firm that
specializes in these types projects can provide a level of oversight and construction
management expertise that the City does not have on staff. Owner’s representatives help
coordinate, manage, and monitor the design, pre-construction, and construction phases of the
project to ensure it’s delivered at the lowest possible cost and highest quality. An owner’s
representative firm (also Day CPM) retained for the Public Works Operations Center project and
Library remodel have been a significant asset to those projects.
On June 7, 2016, the Board adopted findings authorizing the use of the Construction
Manager/General Contractor method of contracting. At that time, we also informed the Board
of our intention to obtain owner’s representation services for the project.
In December 2016, the City requested proposals from project management firms that are on
the City’s Qualifications Based Selection consultant list. Using the informal selection process,
proposals were solicited from firms on the list, and a selection committee evaluated and ranked
three proposals based on the RFP’s ranking criteria. Day CPM was scored as the highest ranked
qualified firm.
14.1
Page 2
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
DISCUSSION
Similar to the other city projects currently using an owner’s representative, Day CPM’s project
management staff would serve as key member of the project team and lend their experience as
a liaison between the architect and CM/GC throughout the project, as well as providing other
project management support services during permitting, bidding, contracting, and reporting.
Day’s experience with public projects including public safety facilities, and their familiarity with
Lake Oswego will be significant in helping deliver a successful project that balances our goals for
cost, time, and quality. Day’s proposal is based on the estimated number of hours for
performing the tasks in the scope with a not-to-exceed contract limit. The scope was
purposefully streamlined to reflect the intention to use their expertise where it would be most
effective for the project. Those critical tasks include assisting with the selection and
negotiations with the CM/GC, reviewing construction documents and value engineering studies,
providing general construction oversight, assisting with the budget and schedule, and assisting
us with special inspection contracts and building commissioning.
In sum, having an owner’s representative to assist us with a facility construction project gives us
the expertise and project management experience we don’t keep on staff and helps balance
workload demands to ensure the project is successfully accomplished along with other
priorities.
Police Facility Project Update
The Police Facility pre-design work is progressing as planned with design meetings scheduled to
start soon. The current anticipated square footage for the new building is around 33,000
square feet, which includes the community room/emergency operations center, and spaces for
the Arts Council and Booktique. The preliminary preferred floor plan still envisions a 2 story
building with the community and public spaces situated on A Avenue.
A series of public meetings are scheduled to begin in April with a community visioning meeting.
The process also includes an eco-charrette with community members and meetings with the
Sustainability Advisory Board.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The contract is included in the Police Facility project’s preliminary budget as a soft cost under
the Owner’s responsibility. The contract is for a not-to-exceed amount based on an estimate of
hours spent by Day CPM staff on different phases of the project. Day CPM would be
compensated for their services as based on their actual hours spent and billed to the project.
The scope includes project management support on both the Police Facility and City Hall
rehabilitation portion of the projects but assumes the scope of the City Hall portion will be the
Page 3
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us
replacement of the envelope and walls. Depending on the Board’s decision regarding the
options for City Hall, the scope could be affected due to construction phasing and schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract to Day CPM Services, LLC for a not to exceed amount of $250,000 to provide
Owner’s Representation Services for the New Police Facility and City Hall Rehabilitation Project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Contract for Owner’s Representation Services
Page 1 –Contract
LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Personal Service Contract
Contractor: DAY CPM Services, LLC Date of
Contract:
March 8, 2017
Mailing
Address:
12745 SW Beaverdam Road
Suite 120
Beaverton, OR 97005
Date of
Completion:
December 31, 2019
WITNESSETH:
Contractor and Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency, an Urban Renewal Agency of the
City of Lake Oswego, mutually covenant and agree to and with each other as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contractor shall perform the
Project as outlined in this Contract. The contract documents shall consist of, and any conflicts
shall be resolved in the following priority:
A. This Contract;
B. LORA Standard Public Contract Provisions, which are attached and hereby
incorporated by reference;
C. The exhibit(s) to this Contract in the following order of priority:
• Exhibit A: Scope of Work
• Exhibit B: Contractor’s Rate Schedule
D. Contractor’s Proposal
This contract shall supersede any prior representation or contract, written or oral.
2. DURATION OF CONTRACT. This Contract shall become effective on the date this Contract
has been signed by every party hereto. Contractor acknowledges that no work has been or will
be performed for the project under this Contract until this Contract is fully executed and
effective. Contractor shall complete performance of this contract on or before the Date of
Completion stated above.
3. PAYMENT.
A. Amount of Payment. Contractor shall be compensated for all goods, materials,
expenses, and services as follows: payment based on lump-sum payment tasks, reimbursement
of expense costs, and Contractor’s rate schedule, as set forth on Exhibit B; provided however that
the contract amount shall not exceed $250,000.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 –Contract
B. Manner of Payment. Payment shall be due to the contractor, in accordance with
the subsection Date of Payment below, upon the following: monthly, with an invoice being
submitted by contractor within the first 30 days of the start of Work and continuing each month
thereafter until completion or termination.
C. Taxpayer Identification Report / Date and Method of Payment. No payment
shall be due to the Contractor until the Contractor has submitted to LORA’s Finance Department
IRS Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification and Certification (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
pdf/fw9.pdf). LORA prefers to pay contractors by electronic fund transfer; the contractor may
submit the EFT agreement (http://tinyurl.com/LO-EFT) to LORA’s Finance Department. Payment
shall be tendered, when due within 30 days from the date of receipt of the invoice.
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Contractor agrees that time is of the essence under this
Contract.
5. TERMINATION.
A. Parties' Right to Terminate for Convenience. This Contract may be terminated
at any time by mutual written consent of the parties.
B. LORA’s Right to Terminate for Convenience. LORA may, at its sole discretion,
terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, upon 10 days notice to Contractor.
C. LORA's Right to Terminate for Cause. LORA may terminate this Contract, in
whole or in part, immediately upon notice to Contractor, or at such later date as Public
Contracting Officer may establish in such notice, upon the occurrence of any of the following
events:
(i) LORA fails to receive funding, or appropriations, limitations or other
expenditure authority at levels sufficient to pay for Contractor's Work;
(ii) Federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in
such a way that either the Work under this Contract is prohibited or LORA is prohibited from
paying for such Work from the planned funding source;
(iii) Contractor no longer holds any license or certificate that is required to
perform the Work; or
(iv) Contractor commits any material breach or default of any covenant,
warranty, obligation or agreement under this Contract, fails to perform the Work under this
Contract within the time specified herein or any extension thereof, or so fails to pursue the
Work as to endanger Contractor's performance under this Contract in accordance with its
terms, and such breach, default or failure is not cured within 5 business days after delivery of
Public Contracting Officer's notice, or such longer period as Public Contracting Officer may
specify in such notice.
D. Contractor's Right to Terminate for Cause. Contractor may terminate this
Contract upon 30 days' notice to Public Contracting Officer if LORA fails to pay Contractor
pursuant to the terms of this Contract and LORA fails to cure within 30 business days after
Page 3 –Contract
receipt of Contractor's notice, or such longer period of cure as Contractor may specify in such
notice.
E. Remedies. In the event of termination pursuant to subsections B, C(i), C(ii) or D,
Contractor's sole remedy shall be a claim for the sum designated for accomplishing the Work
multiplied by the percentage of Work completed and accepted by Public Contracting Officer,
less previous amounts paid and any claim(s) which LORA has against Contractor. If previous
amounts paid to Contractor exceed the amount due to Contractor under this subsection,
Contractor shall pay any excess to LORA upon demand.
In the event of termination pursuant to subsection C(iii) or C(iv), LORA shall have any
remedy available to it in law or equity. If it is determined for any reason that Contractor was
not in default under subsection C(iii) or C(iv), the rights and obligations of the parties shall be
the same as if the Contract was terminated pursuant to subsection B.
F. Contractor's Tender upon Termination. Upon receiving a notice of termination
of this Contract, Contractor shall immediately cease all activities under this Contract, unless
Public Contracting Officer expressly directs otherwise in such notice of termination.
Upon termination of this Contract, Contractor shall deliver to Public Contracting Officer
all documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be
deliverables had the Contract been completed. Upon Public Contracting Officer's request,
Contractor shall surrender to anyone Public Contracting Officer designates, all documents,
research or objects or other tangible things needed to complete the Work.
6. INSURANCE. The Contractor will not perform any work under this contract until LORA
has received copies of applicable insurance policies or acceptable evidence that the insurance
indicated as required in subsection D below is in force.
A. Scope of Insurance. The Contractor shall obtain prior to the commencement of
the Contract, and shall maintain in full force and effect for the term of this contract, at the
Contractor's expense, the policies indicated below in subsection D for the protection of the
Contractor. The Contractor shall not undertake any acts that shall affect the coverage afforded
by the above policy. If the insurance policy is issued on a “claims made” basis, then the
Contractor shall continue to obtain and maintain coverage for not less than three years
following the completion of the contract.
If no automobile liability insurance policy is required in subsection D, Contractor
expressly acknowledges and agrees that LORA is not providing any automobile insurance to
Contractor and that as to LORA and any third parties, Contractor bears sole liability for claims,
damages, injury (including death) and losses, arising out of or resulting from Contractor's
operation of Contractor's automobile or any other automobile, whether or not such use is
related to Contractor's work under this contract, and Contractor shall make no claim against
LORA for any claim, damage, injury, or loss resulting thereby.
Page 4 –Contract
B. Coverage Amount. The policies shall be issued by a company authorized to do
business in the State of Oregon, protecting the Contractor or subcontractor or anyone directly
or indirectly employed by either of them against liability for the loss or damage of personal and
bodily injury, contractual liability, death and property damage, and any other losses or
damages above mentioned with limits not less than as stated in subsection D below or the limit
of public liability contained in ORS 30.260 to 30.300 for any policy, whichever is greater.
C. Certificate of Insurance / Additional Insured and Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement. The Contractor shall cause the insurance company to provide the City with: (i) a
certificate of insurance and, (ii) if an additional insured endorsement is indicated as required in
subsection D below, an endorsement thereto naming the City, its officers, agents, and
employees as an additional insured for those policies indicated. The policies will be endorsed
to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City and all additional insureds. The
Contractor shall provide the City written notice of cancellation or material modification of the
insurance contract for not less than the following notice for the purposes stated: 30 days prior
notice for reasons other than non-payment; 10 days prior notice for non-payment.
The Contractor shall further cause a certificate of insurance to be issued not less than 5 days
prior to any policy expiration date by the Contractor’s insurance company or companies during
the term of the Work, to assure that the required insurance is maintained.
D. Insurance Policy Requirements.
Required? Type of Insurance Minimum Coverage LORA named as
Additional
Insured
Yes Comprehensive general
or commercial general
liability
$2,000,000 per occurrence and
$3,000,000 in the aggregate
Yes
No Protection and
Indemnity
US L&H
$2 million per accident
$2 million per person per accident
Yes
No Automobile liability $2,000,000 per accident-combined
single limit or $2,000,000 bodily injury
and $1,000,000 property damage
Yes
Yes Professional liability $2,000,000 per claim/aggregate No
Yes
Or
No (if
initialed)
Workers Compensation
Employer’s Liability
____________________
[______] Contractor
Initial if Exempt from
Worker Comp Coverage
Statutory Coverage
$1 million per person per accident
_______________________________
Contractor warrants and represents contractor
does not employ any persons that would require
contractor to provide workers compensation
insurance benefits.
No
* The amounts may be achieved by a combination of base coverage and umbrella coverage.
Page 5 –Contract
DAY CPM Services, LLC
By:_________________________________
Name: Joshua Dodson
Title: Principal
Date: _______________________________
Check one:
Sole Proprietor
Partnership
Corporation
Limited Liability Company
Limited Liability Partnership
Other:
Domicile, if other than Oregon:
LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, an
Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Lake
Oswego
____________________________________
Scott Lazenby, Executive Director
Date: ______________________
Public Contracting Officer
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Date Authorized by LORA Board, if applicable:
_______________________________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Evan P. Boone,
Deputy LORA Counsel
Ver. 1509
Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency
New Police Facility and City Hall Rehabilitation Project
Owner’s Representation Services Scope of Work
The Owner’s Representative shall work with the Owner, the Architect, the General Contractor (CM/GC)
and other consultants, contractors, and vendors throughout the project to ensure the owner’s cost,
quality, and timely delivery of the project goals are met. The Owner’s Representative shall advocate for
the Owner’s interests of quality, timely, and cost-effective construction of the Project, while maintaining
professional relationships with the contractors and professional services consultants.
The Owner’s Representative will monitor progress on all aspects of the project and will assist and advise
the Owner’s project manager to ensure the project is completed in accordance with the Owner’s
objectives for cost, time, and quality.
• Participate in meetings with the project team to discuss such matters as procedures, progress,
issues, problems, and scheduling.
• Attend meetings, as needed, during the Pre-Design, and Design Development phases which may
include project team meetings, meetings with the Planning Department, LORA Board, and other
stakeholder groups.
• Assist in the review of cost proposals, construction documents, constructability reviews, and
value engineering studies
• Assist with oversight and management of the Owner’s master project budget.
• Review project schedule, monitor status, and provide input. Compare work progress with
planned schedule, identify potential variances between scheduled and probable completion
dates, and notify the Architect, Owner, and CM/GC of any project schedule slippage. Review
Contractor’s plan to get back on schedule.
• Support Owner in the Construction Manager/General Contractor alternative project delivery
method including interviewing, negotiating, selecting, and contract negotiations with a
prequalified CM/GC firm and the setting of a guaranteed maximum price for the project
• Assist owner with general construction oversight and coordination including monitoring
CM/GC’s compliance with contract specifications, vendor activities, review of submittals, review
of applications for payment, attendance at progress meetings, and provide project status
updates to the Owner as requested.
• Help coordinate, select, and manage contracting for special inspections and geotechnical
construction review, and other third parties if necessary.
• Assist and advise Owner and CM/GC with the project closeout including commissioning,
functional testing, punch list, certificate of occupancy, and documentation.
Exhibit A
Lake Oswego Police FacilityDAY CPM Fee ScheduleYearQuarterMonth J F M A M J J A S O N DF M A M J J A S O N DLake Oswego Police Department/ City Hall1Conceptual Plan & Design Development2 Visioning & Public Outreach Visioning & Public Outreach3Cost Development4Sustainability Services5 Schematic Design6Development Review Process7CMGC Selection 8Design Development9 Construction Documents10 Permitting11 Police Headquarters Construction12City Hall ConstructionCity Hall ConstructionBilling Rates2017 Rate2018 Rate2019 RateDAY CPM Project Management ResourcesPIC/ Project Manager (Joshua Dodson)168$ 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 15 15172.20$ 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15176.51$ 10Sr. Project Manager 138$ 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 40 40 30 30141.45$ 25 25 25 25 25 25 30 30 35 35 35 30144.99$ 30Project Manager (Doug Garland)103$ 5 5555555555105.58$ 5555555 55555108.21$ 5Project Admin (Lou Ann McCormic)65$ 1 111111111166.63$ 1111111 1111168.29$ 1DAY CPM subtotal061 6156565656567676515146464646464651 515656565146Staff levels measured as FTEs0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.30.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.30.3DAY CPM Fee schedule $0 8,770 8,770 7,930 7,930 7,930 7,930 7,930 11,140 11,140 7,240 7,2406,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 6,714 7,421 7,421 8,128 8,128 8,128 7,4216,724Development Review ProcessCMGC Selection J Police HJConceptual Plan & Design DevelopmentCost DevelopmentDesign Development Construction Documents PermittingSustainability Services Schematic DesignNOTE: This matrix schedule was based upon information provided by MacKenzie on 11‐23‐2016 and budget info from Jordan dated 11‐1‐2016. Reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost. 2/6/20171Q4Q20173Q2Q20181Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q1Exhibit B
Lake Oswego Police FacilityDAY CPM Fee ScheduleLake Oswego Police Department/ City HallConceptual Plan & Design Development Visioning & Public OutreachCost DevelopmentSustainability Services Schematic DesignDevelopment Review ProcessCMGC Selection Design Development Construction Documents Permitting Police Headquarters ConstructionCity Hall ConstructionBilling RatesDAY CPM Project Management ResourcesPIC/ Project Manager (Joshua Dodson)Sr. Project Manager Project Manager (Doug Garland)Project Admin (Lou Ann McCormic)DAY CPM subtotalStaff levels measured as FTEsDAY CPM Fee schedule $NOTE: This matrix schedule was based upon information provided by MacKenzie on 11‐23‐2016 and budget info from Jordan dated 11‐1‐2016. Reimbursable expenses will be billed at cost. 2/6/2017FMAMJJASONDTOTAL Budget thru 201910 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 084,852$ 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 10 0145,426$ 5555555551017,518$ 111111111002,197$ 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 36 21 01,7240.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.06,724 6,724 6,724 6,724 6,724 6,724 6,724 6,724 5,274 3,323 0249,994$ 249,994$ 31%249,994$ 249,994$ Headquarters ConstructionAverage FTE Overall Total PM Fee from aboveTOTAL=TOTALS20194Q3Q2Q2