HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-03-23 PMLAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
Contact
Email:
Phone:
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 380AAvenue
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us
503-675-3984
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Also published on the internet at:
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page #
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS (20 minutes)
3.1 WaterAfrica Proclamation
3.2 Streetcar Update
3.3 Centennial Moment
4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no
discussion.
♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent
agenda.
4.1 MINUTES
4.1.1 October 20, 2009, regular meeting
4.1.2 November 17, 2009, regular meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Kristin Johnson, Councilor
Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor
Page 2
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT (30 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 citizen shall
apply.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 hour)
7.1 Street Maintenance Fee Decision
Resolution 10-19, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council adjusting Street
Maintenance Fee rates
Resolution 10-20, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council establishing annual
indexing of Street Maintenance Fee rates
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
Staff Report by Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager
Testimony will be taken in the order received:
• 5 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association,
homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public
interest organization;
• 3 minutes for other persons.
Questions of Staff
Discussion
Motion 1: Move to adopt Resolution 10-19, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City
Council adjusting Street Maintenance Fee rates
Motion 2: Move to adopt Resolution 10-20, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City
Council establishing annual indexing of Street Maintenance Fee rates
8. REPORTS (30 minutes)
8.1 Resolution 10-21, adopting the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum
Motion: Move to adopt resolution 10-21
Page 3
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes)
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide
information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each
Councilor will be given five minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (5 minutes)
10.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The
meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m.
Friday 2:30 a.m.
Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Sunday 4:00 p.m.
Monday 11:00 P.M.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live
CITY COUNCIL/ LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 3/18/10
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 30
• Teleconference with lobbyists about transit and the appropriations
April 19
process (15 min.)
Tuesday,
• Electric Vehicle presentation by PGE (15 min.)
April 20
• Community Survey (15 min.)
• Percent for Art (15 min)
• Review of Capital Improvement Plan (1 hour)
• Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan (1 hour)
Tuesday,
Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom
April 6
• Financial Update
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
• LO Reads Recap
• Amy Carlton, recipient of Prudential Spirit of Community Award
(youth volunteer)
• Economic Development Strategy
• LOIS Update
• Return of 5 -foot strip of property at 3270 Lakeview Blvd.
• ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Retrofits (Royce Way)
Study Session
• Glenmorrie Overlay Zone
Tuesday,
Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 13
• Real Estate Development Workshop (Bruce Wood and Will Denecke)
Monday,
Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB
April 19
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 20
• Streetcar Update
Monday,
April 26
Tuesday,
April 27
Monday,
May 3
Public Hearing
• Annexation of 5957 Waluga Drive
• Annexation of 16211 Waluga Drive
• Adoption of Infill Recommendation
Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB
Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
• Meeting with the Commission for Citizen Involvement (PC)
• Neighborhood Planning Kit
• Clarification on referring Congregate Care Housing Ord. to Planning
Commission
Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 3/18/10
DATE MEETING
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 o.m. Council Chambers
May 4
• Public Works Week Proclamation
• LOIS Update
Public Hearing
• Flood Management Area Map Revision (LU 10-0003)
• Glenmorrie Overlay Zone
• CR&D Zone Amendments
Thursday,
Streetcar Line Tour. 4-7 o.m. tentative
May 7
Tuesday,
Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
May 11
. Business Case Analysis to select a water treatment plant process
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 o.m. Council Chambers
May 18
• Streetcar Update
• Landmark Designation Plaque and Historic Merit Award Presentation
for National Historic Preservation Month
Public Hearing
To Be Scheduled
• Emergency Response Plan
• Implementation of Matrix report (Spring 2010)
• Foothills Redevelopment Agreement
• Municipal Finance
• LOIS Bond Sale
• Tour of Willamette River to see Foothills Dock and Water Treatment Plant intake
• Prepare for Rail—Volution Conference (Oct 19-21, 2010)
• Streetcar Locally Preferred Alternative Process
• GB Arrington on Foothills as Transit Oriented Development
• Tour of Smart Growth/Housing Options
• Lifelong Learning
• Tour of recycling facilities
Regular Updates
• LOIS Update, 1st meeting every month
• Streetcar Update, 2nd meeting every month
• Sustainability Update, quarterly
• Financial Update, quarterly
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
(Proclamation
'WaterAfrica Day
WHEREAS, Saturday, April 17, 2010 WaterAfrica volunteers with World Vision present Walk
For Water in Lake Oswego;
WHEREAS, approximately 2/3 of the people in rural Zambia do not have access to safe water
for drinking, cooking and hygiene;
WHEREAS, because safe water is not available:
• Villagers, particularly children, get sick from the unhealthy water they drink.
• Under -5 mortality is estimated to be 25 to 35% in rural Zambia.
• The most common illnesses are diarrhea, schistosomiasis and trachoma.
• Women and children, particularly girls, spend hours every day walking miles to get
water. (This is what the LO Walk for Water replicates.)
• As a result, women do not have time to take care of their families or earn money and girls
cannot attend school.
• There is little water for gardens or livestock.
WHEREAS, by drilling a borehole and providing safe water:
• Diarrhea and other water -borne diseases are cut by 95%.
• Under -5 mortality is cut in half.
• Women have time to care for their family and earn money.
• Girls can attend school.
• Villagers can grow gardens and water their livestock.
WHEREAS, Walk for Water, an event to raise awareness and provide borehole wells in Zambia,
will take place in Foothills Park in Lake Oswego, Oregon on April 17, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Lake Oswego City Council do hereby
proclaim Saturday, April 17, 2010 as WaterAfrica Day in Lake Oswego.
J $I
1 WoMPOAko
Wa
I L for Y u01VO,A'm a*A wn,ld �""Nbfl
The Long Walk
The walk is long. The losses are huge.
The cost to children is unacceptable.
You Can Help
Saturday, April 17, 2010
9am (8:30am registration)
Foothills Park (new location)
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Registration: $10/student or child, $35/individual, $70/family
(100% donation goes toward clean water)
One $35 contribution provides safe water
for a Zambian child's lifetime.
Featuring: African drumming, Zambian visitors,
water exhibits and refreshments
Join us in making a difference and register online
www.thewatkforwater.com
BYOB: Bring Your Own Bucket
Clean Water Changes Lives
(v6j &l Som
World Vision
r'
Bill or Diane Savage
From: Hoffman, Jack Ohoffman@ci.oswego.or.usl
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:45 AM
To: Bill or Dian avage
Cc: Chrisoby ; jhoffman@dunncamey.com
Subject: RE: April 17 W terAfrica Day
Bill;
I am forwarding your request to the city manager for responses.
Jack
From: Bill or Diane Savage [billdianes@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:09 PM
To: Hoffman, Jack
Cc: Oliphant, Doug ; Yocky, LuAnn; Favero, Linda
Subject: April 17 WaterAfrica Day
Jack,
Thank you again for meeting with Doug, LuAnn, Diane and me on December 28th.
You suggested that I send you an e-mail summarizing our discussion and possible areas where the City
could be of assistance. The person in charge of our Walk for Water has just returned from California and
her input is included in this e-mail
1. Could the City Events Calendar include the April 17 Walk for Water, African lunch, and
WaterAfrica Film Festival?
2. You mentioned including us in a Council Study Session, perhaps in February. We would be happy
to present all the plans for April 17 so the Council is aware of what is happening.
3. Could the City Council pass a resolution designating April 17, 2010 as "WaterAfrica Day?" As
LuAnn mentioned (and you know), an official declaration such as this means a great deal to the
people of Zambia. We expect to have a representative from Zambia join us and that person could
take the declaration back to Zambia.
4. Could you and/or City Council members provide an official welcome to the walkers and join in
the Walk for Water?
5. Alth gh our Walk organizers have talked with the City about using Foothills Park for the Walk,
they ld prefer Millennium Park. Is the construction area such that a portion of the Millennium
Park d be available to accommodate registration tables and provide a place for 250 people to
stan to listen to welcoming speeches?
6. We w d also like to use the lower Millennium Park plaza and steps going down to the lake as
the loc fill our buckets—is this possible?
7. Could you check to see if we could possibly have a reduced price for the use of City facilities,
including the park, on April 17 and for the use of a room at the WEB for our monthly WaterAfrica
meetings? If you reduce the prices, we would be happy to include The City of Lake Oswego as an
official sponsor for the Walk.
Again we appreciate your time at the meeting and any help you and the City can provide on these items.
Sincerely,
President
WQtemAfir
503 635-5225
www. waterafrico. ora
PUBL lC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE
This e-mail is a public record of the City of Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure uniess exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This
email is subject to the State Retention Schedule.
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
x
m
�cu
;-'a
M
O O m
ci'c~n u _
w 0
�N —W�: cC
0
O
O
LO
m
a�
uv
Ln
m
0
v �
CZ bD CU N
•�3n
`.C{. O m
a aj "o
C5 '4 m
00 't _j Ln
111,S
w
0 3
cu
o
0
y
Qr O
r,
m a:
Ln
m
0
v �
CZ bD CU N
•�3n
`.C{. O m
a aj "o
C5 '4 m
00 't _j Ln
111,S
CD C r)
Q.
Z) CD m
('DrD
w G
O
ID
� •
CR
rt a4 23 N O
c(D
0
US
O
dQ
O
a n
) A n
a Q-
.`.
_
ep
fD y.
w
,e
\
A tp
rD m
-
>
a of
i'
�•
9 rt
OH O A
cn o
49
n
aro
O C 2) o p G
cin (D 'l7 a !�D _ C rt rD
(D" ¢ C O n O
CD Q- ¢' O 2)
O '.r. �. m M ID W u aq C rD
0 00
.0 Ami O f9 ✓ '�*
m n cn p N U, ` rt C O aQ O `C
0
C N rt < O n n
rD 0
cin m
tD m
CIq m
w O I"
0 CM
(D
m eDD 0
a �D
� o
rnr ffl
O �
O
O O
O O
O �
co S� W O a
� �� Coote ��
o c�oA'd o m
o m
N rD
C4.
� •
c(D
O
O
dQ
O
a n
) A n
(D �* �:F- Z)
(D
.`.
XD
fD y.
w
CD
\
A tp
rD n
x O AD
>
a of
ce
�•
9 rt
OH O A
cn o
49
n
aro
rD
O C 2) o p G
cin (D 'l7 a !�D _ C rt rD
(D" ¢ C O n O
CD Q- ¢' O 2)
O '.r. �. m M ID W u aq C rD
0 00
.0 Ami O f9 ✓ '�*
m n cn p N U, ` rt C O aQ O `C
0
C N rt < O n n
rD 0
cin m
tD m
CIq m
w O I"
0 CM
(D
m eDD 0
a �D
� o
rnr ffl
O �
O
O O
O O
O �
co S� W O a
� �� Coote ��
o c�oA'd o m
o m
N rD
C4.
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
DATE: March 18, 2010
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
• October 20, 2009, regular meeting
• November 17, 2009, regular meeting
Reviewed by:
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
qJ
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
°, LAKE OS Wf
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 20, 2009
a[wr
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. on
October 20, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney,
and Johnson.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney; Robyn
Christie, City Recorder; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director; David
Donaldson, Assistant City Manager; Kathy Kern Shilling, Parks & Rec; Carol
Bryck, Assistant Finance Director
Youth Council
Present: Youth Councilors Kosloff, Cooper, Silbert, Rathje, and Chandrana
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Centennial Update
Cindy Thompson, Cindy Thompson Event Productions, gave a PowerPoint presentation to
update the Council regarding the Centennial Celebration. She discussed the timeline of events.
She indicated that, at the Kickoff Event on January 19 at the Lakewood Theater, they would
announce the Centennial Ambassadors, unveil the Building Blocks display, and launch the
Centennial Scavenger Hunt. She explained that they would select the honorary Ambassadors
from well-known past or present Lake Oswego residents, including Lake Oswego's founder, Albert
Alonzo Durham, and his wife. She described how the Scavenger Hunt would work in helping to
generate business activity in the slow months of January through March.
She explained that the Centennial Festival Celebration on July 19 at Luscher Farm would be
family-oriented. She described the displays and activities that would occur in each of the three
distinct pavilions highlighting the history, present, and future of Lake Oswego. She mentioned the
entertainment on the main stage and the recreational activities on Hazelia Field.
She indicated that the individual courses at the Centennial Sustainability Dinner on August 28 at
Luscher Farm (300 to 400 guests) would feature Luscher Farm produce prepared by local Lake
Oswego chefs and accompanied by local Oregon wines. She discussed the wrap up event of the
Time Capsule Event on October 9 at Millennium Plaza. She said that residents would be invited
throughout the year to contribute ideas for inclusion in the time capsule.
She reported that they had an extensive list of Lake Oswego organizations and events that
responded to their invitation to participate under the Centennial umbrella. She announced a
meeting at the West End Building on November 5 at 5:30 p.m. for interested organizations and
events to learn more about the benefits available from participating in the Centennial Celebration.
Ms. Kern -Shilling presented the Centennial logo. Ms. Thompson explained that the logo was for
use on all business-related communications, t -shirts and apparel, banners, pins, and signage. She
distributed gifts with the logo on it to the Council.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that the Library Advisory Board was very excited about what they
wanted to do with regard to the Centennial Celebration. Mayor Hoffman thanked Ms. Thompson
and Ms. Kern -Shilling for their work.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16
October 20, 2009
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Johnson moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A
voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan,
Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [7-0]
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 09-49, authorizing amendment No 1 to the intergovernmental agreement
for the management of the Willamette Shore Line Right of Way
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-49
4.1.2 Resolution 09-58, granting recognition as a neighborhood association to the
Skylands Neighborhood
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-58
4.1.3 Resolution 09-61, requesting Council to approve a Resolution to Endorse an
Application for a Department of Land Conservation and Development Grant to Fund
the City of Lake Oswego's Transportation System Plan Update
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-61
4.1.4 Resolution 09-62, adopting a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the
International Association of Firefighters, (IAFF 1159), and the City of Lake Oswego
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-62
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.2.1 July 27, 2009, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Dr. Gordon Fulks, B Avenue
Dr. Fulks stated that he was a physicist. He explained that he was here to follow up on his
previous comments regarding the Council's sustainability action program and Sustainability
Advisory Board.
He contended that the officials in Lake Oswego used words that carried a far different and opposite
meaning to the same words found in the dictionary. He held that the sustainability action program
really meant the climate hysteria program, or, global warming. He stated that global warming was
the exact opposite of the truth because the planet has been cooling for a decade.
He commented that climate change language included the implication that man was to blame. He
argued that the truth was that climate change was a perfectly natural phenomenon that has
occurred as far back as scientists could look at earth's climate history. He referenced the
statement that carbon dioxide was the most important climate gas, and one that was polluting the
world. He stated that carbon dioxide was a minor constituent in the atmosphere with minimal
climate effects, while water vapor was the most important greenhouse and climate gas.
He described carbon dioxide as the gas of life and responsible for almost everything green in the
environment. He stated that man was a carbon creature who derived all of his carbon from
atmospheric carbon dioxide. He argued that carbon dioxide was only evil and polluting if one
thought that all life on the planet was evil and polluting.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16
October 20, 2009
He contended that the purpose of these language reversals was to control action and thought in
convincing people to sign up for whatever `Big Brother' said was necessary to save the planet. He
argued that this carbon control showed up in phrases such as cap and trade or alternate energy.
He alleged that those who objected, especially those with good educations, were considered a
threat to the regime, labeled as 'unpersons' who did not exist, and attacked by the thought police
for thought crimes, as George Orwell had imagined.
He referenced his criticism of the Sustainability Advisory Board hosting Bill Bradbury, whom he
described as a party ideologue. He mentioned Mayor Hoffman citing the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He characterized the Panel as the `Ministry of Truth'
that backed `Big Brother's' claims that carbon dioxide was evil and must be controlled. He argued
that the Panel's case rested on two exhibits and anecdotal information.
He discussed the first exhibit of the hockey stick graph showing that the earth's temperature rose
sharply in the twentieth century. He commented that anyone with any knowledge of history or
geology knew that the earth has experienced warmer periods in the not too distant past, such as
the Medieval and Roman warm periods. He indicated that Edward Wegman, a professor of
Theoretical Statistics, in reporting to the National Academy of Sciences, showed that the
methodology used to create the hockey stick graph was completely faulty.
He noted that the United Nations later resurrected the graph using data any analysis from Keith
Brooks. However, the British Royal Society forced Mr. Brooks to reveal his data, which showed
that the huge upturn he claimed in the twentieth century was derived from a single tree. All other
data from other trees in the same area were completely normal. He quoted from one of the
Canadian scientists who cornered Mr. Brooks, who said, "Whatever is going on here, it id not
science."
He discussed the second exhibit of the United Nations climate models, which predicted relentless
warming over the next century. He quoted Professor of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics,
Gerhard Gerlich, who said, "To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to
scare mankind to death is a crime".
He contended that other evidence from 'the Ministry of Truth' carried the same mind control. He
mentioned the claims that the earth and its oceans continued to warm, that the Arctic ice was
continuing to melt, and the hurricanes were getting worse. He stated that the earth and its oceans
were cooling, the pack ice was expanding, and the hurricanes were at an all time low.
• Larry Logan, 821 Oak Street
He mentioned that he had been the Chief Marketing Officer for Ted Turner's Verde Media, the
CNN of environmental news. He stated that he had no issue with smart environmental and
sustainability practices. He contended that the Sustainability Advisory Board was failing to meet its
charter directive of providing the best advice to the Council and the Lake Oswego community
regarding environmental practices.
He recalled the City's May 2 kickoff of its Sustainability Month with Bill Bradbury. He stated that he
and Dr. Fulks were denied their request to give a balance presentation. He explained that his
presentation tonight came from a 32 -page booklet that he authored and self -published in which he
walked through Mr. Bradbury's presentation slide by slide and backed up his contention of
inaccuracy with scientific references.
He said that he handed out his booklet before Mr. Bradbury's presentation at Marylhurst, which Mr.
Bradbury and his assistant went through page by page. The result was that Mr. Bradbury pulled
more than half his slides from his presentation. Mr. Logan contended that Mr. Bradbury did so
because he had been caught.
He discussed the Sustainability Advisory Board's September 21 presentation to the Council on the
Green Power Challenge. He indicated that he was prepared to counter virtually every statement
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16
October 20, 2009
Matt Briggs made, which he alleged were false, but it would take too much time to do so tonight.
He directed the Council to his booklet, which contained his evidence.
He expressed his great concern that the Council, using so-called science, quickly approved a
proclamation for a Green Power Challenge. He stated that the Fortis Public Service Commission
terminated its program with Green Mountain Energy, the organization used in the Lake Oswego
Challenge, because the Commission found out that only 24% of the money put into the program
actually went to reducing energy. Green Mountain pocketed 76% of it. He asked that the Board
do its due diligence and look closely at this information that 76% of the money did not go to green
energy. He commented that he would have issues with the program if he were told that.
He referenced the representation made that the Challenge guaranteed 100% renewable energy.
He described how that was impossible, given the variability of solar and wind generation and the
need for power generators, at any given time, to run at 75% for their base load.
He discussed his third example, in which he found George Monbiot's Heat: How to Stop the Planet
from Burning among the recommended materials at the Sustainability Advisory Board's table at the
Farmers' Market. He noted that Mr. Monbiot was also the author of Manifesto for a New World
Order, Bring on the Apocalypse, and Anti -Capitalism. He quoted from Mr. Monbiot's book, in which
Mr. Monbiot suggested that an airline executive should be drowned every time someone died
because of floods in Bangladesh.
He asked if it was the Council's position that they should drown airline executives. He commented
that this was the type of alarmism being done in the City's name by the Sustainability Advisory
Board. He held that Lake Oswego citizens deserved better than this. He volunteered to serve as
the appointed watchdog on the Board, which he held would provide the Council with a more
balanced point of view going forward.
• R. A. Fontis, 310 2nd
He discussed his concern that the streetcar would seriously degrade transit service to Lake
Oswego. He directed the Council to his handout.
He referenced the TriMet schedule for the streetcar posted online in arguing that trips using the
streetcar would take much longer than trips using the current bus. He reviewed the traffic statistics
for the Hwy 43 corridor, noting that 70% of the traffic from Lake Oswego to Portland crossed the
Sellwood Bridge, with only 30% continuing on to Portland. He pointed out that ODOT traffic counts
showed the 30% declining to 20% over the past 10 years.
He held that the decline was tied to the aging population of Lake Oswego as more workers retired
and stopped commuting. He indicated that, while the Sellwood Bridge to Lake Oswego traffic was
only 20% of the flow, it was also the only flow that was growing. He speculated that this might be
the first sign of the crowding on 1-205.
He argued that, with the streetcar in place, future Sellwood traffic was not likely to be much worse
than what happened before the imposition of the weight limitations. He noted that West Linn's
growth was oriented towards 1-205, and that the Oregon City residents who used the Lake Oswego
bus would switch to the Max once that extension was built. He commented that overall, ridership
would not increase but rather continue to decrease.
He mentioned Metro's projections. He directed the Council to the traffic shed map on p.5, which
included Wilsonville and eastern Tualatin, groups he doubted would use Hwy 43. He held that,
even with future growth in the Stafford basin, the local people would continue to use the roads for
local purposes while those going to Portland would have other options.
He discussed an error he saw in the map on p. 5, which only included a few blocks to the east in
the study area and did not account for the 70% plus of the traffic coming from the east side. He
questioned whether the alternatives evaluation would catch this error without knowing what the
underlying strategy was of the study. He commented that, since Rep. Blumenauer has already
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16
October 20, 2009
earmarked $142 million for the streetcar with no possibility of using the money for anything else, it
looked like they were stuck with it.
He presented his proposal to mitigate the situation. He suggested keeping the current buses intact
but converting them to non -stops between here and PSU with the streetcar providing local service.
He argued that doing so would significantly improve service at 15 minutes per round trip for the
current bus and 45 minutes for the streetcar.
He expressed his concern that the streetcar alternative eliminating all but a few Lake Oswego
buses would put the FTA funding in jeopardy. He asked who would pay for the added cost of the
streetcar. He indicated that corridor bus service now cost less than $1 million a year and he
expected the streetcar costs (projected at $2.4 million) to run over $3 million a year.
He mentioned that they could eliminate every other run of the streetcar, which would work well with
the bridge streetcar, but it would mean infrequent service. He commented that, on the other hand,
it was not unprecedented and it might be good politics.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Annexation of 13401 Atwater Lane (Ord. 2544/AN 09-0003)
Mr. Boone reviewed the annexation hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He asked the
Council members to declare any ex parte contacts, bias, or conflicts of interest. There were none.
There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Egner indicated that the owner of the lot on the southwest corner of Atwater Lane and Country
Commons in the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association requested annexation in order to
receive sewer service. The septic system for the single-family house was failing.
He said that the City would zone the property R-10 upon annexation and withdraw it from the Lake
Grove Rural Fire District and the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District. The site
had excellent access to sewer and water utilities. He said that staff found that the request met the
Metro and State criteria for annexations. He recommended approval of the annexation.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mr. Egner confirmed to Councilor Jordan that no one responded to notices sent out to
surrounding property owners informing them of this opportunity to annex.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony
NEUTRAL
• Marlin De haas, 1425 Cherry Crest Drive, representing Einur Nordhall
He explained that they did not object to the annexation but they were concerned about how the
City proposed to serve this property with sanitary sewer. He noted the staff proposal to take
access from a sewer on Country Commons. He argued that sewer service should come from an
extension in Country Commons from the Atwater Lane area, as shown in the City's long range
plans.
He discussed his concern that the Babcock residents intended to connect eventually to the already
built sewer in Country Commons, for which they did not pay a dime. He argued that if the City paid
for the Atwater extension, and made an assessment to pay for it, the Babcock people would claim
that they were already served and did not need to participate in the district. Again, they could hook
up to a sewer line without paying for it.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16
October 20, 2009
He feared that this was a similar situation to an earlier annexation where the City policy dictated
allowing a property owner to connect to a sewer in Knauss Road, for which he had not paid. The
property owner would pay for the connection to his house up a private road, but that was all. He
commented that the problem was that option left other people high and dry.
At Mayor Hoffman's request, Mr. Egner brought up the slide showing how the CIP proposed
serving the property. He commented that whether that was the way it happened depended on a
number of factors. He mentioned an option of a local improvement district by the City or a zone of
benefit by a private property owner.
Mr. De haas noted the red line on the slide showing the sewer line for serving Tax Lots 1700 and
1800, which could be extended in the future through the Nordhall property to serve others. He
mentioned his understanding that the City did not contact the Hoovers, Tax Lot 1800. He indicated
that he would like to talk with staff to see if they could work out a fair and equitable procedure.
Mayor Hoffman observed that the Nordhall four -acre property would subdivide into 15 lots, and
probably use the majority of the capacity in that line. Mr. Egner clarified that sewer to Tax Lot
1700 could come from either direction, along Atwater or to the north. He anticipated that properties
subdivided out of Tax Lot 1700 would connect to the north, although it depended on how the
properties ultimately divided.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Jordan that there was a house located on Tax Lot 1700 at this
time. He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that a failing septic system was the motivation for
annexing, although the property certainly could subdivide in the future.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Tierney that the annexation criteria addressed the availability of
sewer service, while also discussing timeliness and a logical extension of utilities. He clarified that
the Council needed to find that the property could be served but not necessarily how it would be
served. He concurred with Mr. De haas that there were many ways to extend the sewer service.
Staff could not know which option the property owners would choose.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Olson that the City's standard practice was to invite adjacent
property owners to participate in a proposed annexation. He commented that he assumed that
staff did so because that was standard practice but he could not verify whether that happened. Mr.
De haas reiterated that the neighbors were not contacted. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that
contacting the neighbors was not a criterion but rather an efficiency measure by the City.
Councilor Moncrieff spoke of taking a holistic approach to annexation, instead of the piecemeal
approach. She discussed taking a long-term look at how the City would provide sewer to every
property on a septic system.
Councilor Jordan acknowledged Councilor Moncrieff's concern regarding the piecemeal approach
but pointed out that in this situation the Council was trying to make sure that the owners of a
property with a failing septic system had adequate health and safety for their home. She noted
that no one at this time was talking about extending sewers to three properties or subdividing.
She commented that she did not like the piecemeal approach either but many things were done
that way because the City needed to deal with an immediate situation. She described this as just
one of those things where part of the procedure was the Council approving an application like this
if it met all the criteria.
Mr. De haas reiterated that they did not object to the annexation, but they did think that there
should be some condition that the property owner pay his fair share of the local improvement
district that he should have been in and not leave other people to pay their share.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he did not wish to present additional information or evidence
at this time.
Mayor Hoffman closed the public hearing.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16
October 20, 2009
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Hoffman observed that this 38,000 square foot property with one house on it was currently
worth between $300,000 to $400,000 as one buildable lot. Upon annexation, the owner gained a
$600,000 benefit because the upzoning allowed two additional lots. He commented that people
frequently complained about government takings and property devaluation, but rarely did anyone
talk about government givings, in which property values increased due to government action, such
as upzoning.
Councilor Johnson moved to enact Ordinance 2544. Councilor Jordan seconded the
motion.
Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Moncrieff that piecemeal annexations have occurred
for quite some time. She suggested that the Council discuss not approving annexations until it
could take a comprehensive approach. She indicated that she was also concerned about the
equity issue raised by Mr. De haas regarding who would pay for the sewer.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan,
Hennagin, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' Councilors Moncrieff and Olson voted `no.'
[5-2]
8. REPORTS
8.1 Attainable Housing (presented by Councilor Hennagin and Paul Lyons)
Councilor Hennagin introduced Paul Lyons and Ralph Tehran. He recalled that one of the
central planks of his election campaign had been the lack of attainable housing in Lake Oswego.
He spoke of those, like he and his wife, who wanted one day to downsize and stay in Lake
Oswego, and of the community's difficulty in attracting younger families with school age children.
He said that a group of concerned citizens have been meeting Friday mornings to discuss the
issue.
• Paul Lyons, 2250 Wembley Park Road
He gave a PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned the regular attendees of the Friday morning
group: Dan Vizzini, Janine Dunphy, Ralph Tehran, Ted Argo, Norma Heiser and Chuck Maloney.
He stated that Lake Oswego's demographics were changing. He noted that school enrollment was
down a cumulative 5.2% over the last five years. He mentioned the national trends towards
smaller home sizes and urban living. He commented that the one million people anticipated to
move into the region would continue to put pressure on prices and deter more families and seniors
from obtaining the right size housing.
He discussed the challenges in Lake Oswego with its expensive and limited land, big lots, big
houses, and zoning that limited flexibility and innovation. He mentioned that local realtors were
reporting that demand was changing. He quoted from the Comprehensive Plan: "Provide
opportunities for housing at varied price ranges and rent levels based on local needs." He
suggested that the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan was the right time to look at the
future of housing approaches.
He recalled that the public testimony they heard at the Affordable Housing Task Force consistently
spoke of wanting to stay in Lake Oswego and having no place to move to in the community upon
selling a house. He recalled the suggestions made in 2004 and 2005 to update the
Comprehensive Plan to implement the housing diversity it supported, including secondary dwelling
units. He mentioned the additional suggestions of having no net loss of existing affordable housing,
setting up a Community Housing Board or Commission to monitor affordable housing over time,
and establishing a trust fund.
He reported that the main issues heard at the 50 plus dialogs were maintaining independence and
more options for housing. He mentioned the concerns voiced by those living on fixed incomes
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16
October 20, 2009
about maintaining their homes and properties in the face of increasing physical limitations. He
spoke of their desire for smaller living spaces, accommodating limitations, and having
intergenerational social interaction with neighbors. He noted the 50 plus recommendations for tax
bonuses and zoning overlays to support diversity while protecting the neighborhoods.
He discussed the changing demographics of Lake Oswego. He presented a chart of the 2007
census for Lake Oswego. He pointed out that 22% of the residents in 2000 were 55 plus but in
2007 that figure rose to 28.7%. He observed that the community could be approaching 40% of its
residents at 55 plus, and doing so at a rapid pace.
He presented a chart showing the diversity of household incomes and family sizes. He noted that
24% of households were living on Social Security income and even more on retirement income.
He acknowledged that Lake Oswego was affluent with its median income at $76,000 compared to
a $64,000 median income in Portland and a $48,000 median income in Oregon. He commented
that the difference between the mean (the middle) and the average of $76,000 told him that the
community had many smaller incomes that brought the average down.
He reported anecdotal information regarding market demand that because of the pricing decline in
the suburbs where the majority of the housing inventory lay, people were opting out of the best
schools and going to where they could get bigger houses and more property in the suburbs. He
mentioned realtors also talking of more seniors wanting something smaller, such as the housing
available in the Pearl.
He clarified to Mayor Hoffman that families with children came and looked at Lake Oswego
houses because of the schools but opted to purchase larger houses and properties for the same
money elsewhere.
He noted that Lake Oswego did have a lot of diversity of housing types of units, yet the community
was almost 80% owner -occupied homes. However, most multiple -unit housing was rented with
only a small percentage owned. He pointed out that well over one-third of Lake Oswego's
household had no children, with many living alone.
He concurred with Mayor Hoffman that people were talking about the percentage of one and two
person households significantly increasing in the region 10 to 20 years from now.
He quoted from a report in the Wall Street Journal titled "Making Suburbia More Livable: "The
nation's sprawling suburbs may have been a good place to grow up but they're a tough place to
grow old." He mentioned that there many communities looking into how to transform themselves
into lifelong communities where people could age in place with more housing choices and social
interaction.
He referenced the report's findings that half the U.S. population lived in suburban communities
attached to a major metro area with over 30 million of that population at 55 plus. He mentioned an
AARP recent study that found that 85% of the folks 55 plus wanted to age in place. He
summarized their desire as wanting the option to buy something else that was `right -sized,' which
mean smaller footprint housing.
He cited Fayetteville, Georgia, and Lakewood, Colorado, as two examples of communities
planning their entire communities to make them more walkable with many more housing options.
He presented photos of the different kinds of housing units available in Lake Oswego with its
diverse neighborhoods and different lot sizes, including cottages, duplexes, and attached housing.
He described what `affordable' would look like. He spoke of smaller homes, cottage clusters, and
pocket neighborhoods. He expressed their hope that the homes would be sustainable in design
and energy efficient to lower the operating costs. He mentioned the need to be sensitive to
neighborhood design while integrating affordable housing into all of the neighborhoods, rather than
locating it at the edge of the city.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16
October 20, 2009
He mentioned that communities were starting to develop small bungalows and pocket
neighborhoods, often with common areas and shared parking. He remarked that today bankers
were more flexible in financing developments without double car garages than they were in the
1970s and 1980s. He presented photos of properties in the Metro region, around the Northwest,
and around the country developed with smaller houses and common areas.
He asked the Council to consider creating a vision of a diversity of affordable housing choices in
Lake Oswego. He indicated that this would be a citywide initiative that would involve the
neighborhoods in dialog. He spoke of creating planning and zoning tools that allowed flexibility,
innovation, and different approaches to housing.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Moncrieff thanked Mr. Lyons for his excellent report. She commented that it was
important to keep transportation in mind, especially the walkability and the access to public
transportation in attainable housing areas. Mr. Lyons mentioned the need for walkable
neighborhoods as well as walkable communities.
Councilor Olson expressed her appreciation for the good and helpful information presented. She
commented that it highlighted for her the need for the Council to return to discussing infill, as it was
all interrelated. She asked if Mr. Lyons read the Oregonian article from three weeks ago
discussing the market trend of retirees moving to small towns and rural areas, as opposed to the
trend towards urban living.
Mr. Lyons said that he talked with the article writer. He acknowledged that that sort of movement
has happened occasionally but pointed out that the person highlighted in the article moved from a
mid -rise in Honolulu to Portland. He indicated that the demographics that he has found showed
that movement occurring from very large urban areas rather than from the suburbs. He reiterated
that AARP and others have found that people wanted to stay in the place where they raised their
families.
He clarified to Councilor Olson that the Housing Study Group was not a City -initiated group but
rather a volunteer group of people interested in housing that have been getting together for several
years to discuss housing issues over morning coffee.
Councilor Jordan spoke to the City doing a better job of getting information to realtors about the
real costs of living in Hillsboro, Sherwood, or other communities where they could buy larger
homes for the same money versus the true costs of living closer in. She mentioned the higher fees
and taxes in those cities as well as increased commute costs versus access to public
transportation and the availability of all services in communities closer in.
She commented that a realtor marketing properties in Lake Oswego could mention the schools and
the other amenities that made Lake Oswego an attractive alternative with a lower cost and better
investment in the long run. She held that this was an important factor, which more and more
young people were thinking about.
She discussed the issue of the mix of properties. She spoke in support of smaller housing, citing
the small houses located in her diverse neighborhood, which could eventually redevelop with
duplexes or fourplexes to provide more housing in an attractive way. She suggested looking at
how the mix of owners and renters would work, as focusing on home ownership alone in the
affordable housing mix was too narrow.
She commented that she had found the article referenced by Councilor Olson interesting to read,
but at the end of it, she found out that the people moving to the country lived there for 15 to 20
years and then moved back to the city as they aged for medical help and more services closer in.
She expressed her concern that they were focusing too much on those who wanted to stay in
place. She pointed out that those who would use the parks and recreational facilities in the
community would be coming from outside the area. She remarked that rental fees would not cover
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16
October 20, 2009
the cost of maintaining those facilities, which meant that many of the older people staying in place
would end up subsidizing them. She wondered whether they would see the attitude of "I don't want
to pay more for parks I don't use." She spoke to working on the diversity of ages as well.
Mayor Hoffman commented that they could encourage a diversity of ages by creating products
with amenities that appealed to families or with amenities that appealed to senior citizens.
Councilor Hennagin thanked all those who attended the Friday morning meetings and the Council
for listening. He mentioned their hope that Mr. Lyons and Mr. Tehran would volunteer to take this
presentation to neighborhood associations and organized groups as a way to start a community
dialog about affordable housing.
Councilor Johnson spoke of those like herself, the young professionals who grew up in Lake
Oswego. She noted that many left because they could not afford to live here. They grew attached
to somewhere else and stayed there when they started their families. She asked the Housing
Study Group and other groups studying housing to look at housing that was not necessarily geared
towards one group or another but rather to look at housing for a diversity in ages in the Lake
Oswego population. Mr. Lyons agreed with the need for age diversity in a community.
Councilor Tierney thanked Councilor Hennagin for bringing this powerful presentation to the
Council. He thanked the all those who attended the Friday morning meetings. He referenced the
two communities in Georgia and Colorado that were trying to create compact walkable
communities, and Metro's emphasis on the compact urban form. He asked if either of those
communities would serve as a better example for the Council's efforts to look forward. Mr. Lyons
said that, while he has not studied the plats in depth, they were available.
Councilor Tierney asked if there was a market in Lake Oswego for the kind of affordable housing
that Mr. Lyons described with smaller homes on smaller parcels. Mr. Lyons indicated that local
realtors were seeing a market for smaller homes among those looking to downsize and economize
house living expenses, although not many have been available.
Councilor Tierney noted that over four years ago the Affordable Housing Task Force made its
presentation to the Council on July 7, 2005. He asked what it would take for the community and
the City to do more than just receive PowerPoint presentations.
Mr. Lyons indicated that the cornerstone was more dialog and education about the future of the
community. He held that doing so would take guidance, direction, and vision from the Council. He
mentioned the staff getting engaged in looking at how to do things differently. He spoke of
engaging the business community and the churches in the dialog of what the future would look like.
Mayor Hoffman asked whether there was agreement to move in the direction of providing the
vision and encouragement requested. He recalled that the Council in 2005 was not of a mind to go
forward, but if this Council had a different view and was agreeable, then they could encourage this
unofficial group to start the citizen dialog as the first step.
He referenced Mr. Lyons' comment that Lake Oswego's zoning code prohibited flexible housing
choices. He suggested a second step of asking staff to look at other zoning codes to see what
other cities were doing to allow the market to provide those housing choices. He suggested also
looking at what other cities were doing to gain neighborhood buy in, as community buy in was a
crucial element in making affordable housing work. He spoke of visualizing what the zoning would
look like for affordable housing.
Councilor Olson commented that this was an important issue in which she was interested and
one that they needed to address as a city. She asked for further discussion of the topic in the
context of the Council's goal setting process next year. She indicated that she needed more time
personally to think about it and its impact on the budget and other Council priorities.
Councilor Jordan commented that what the Council was looking at was very different from a
planned unit development. She spoke of one of the education steps as demonstrating that this
was truly a different concept and product. She asked if there was a way that Mr. Tehran and Mr.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16
October 20, 2009
Lyons, as they made presentations to interested community groups, could help educate peop
that this was not a planned unit development.
She observed that the next step would be people in the neighborhoods thinking about where
affordable housing might fit within their neighborhood. She held that it would be helpful if peo
were already thinking along these lines before the City started the visioning process.
Councilor Tierney spoke in support of the Council moving at some due speed in this directio
direction that was consistent with the compact urban form and walkable communities. He hel
the Council needed to affirm that those elements were consistent with its vision. He agreed ti,u,
they could discuss these matters during goal setting. He commented that their goals this year
dealt with components of the elements but not with the vision.
He expressed his appreciation for the work. He commented that interested citizens bringing this
presentation to a broader community would be very powerful in terms of helping their fellow
citizens understand what affordable housing meant, as opposed to fearing it.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he liked the concept of deliberate speed. He noted that Mr.
Lyons and Mr. Tehran could make a couple of presentations before the holidays. Their feedback
to Councilor Hennagin and staff's research on zoning issues would inform the Council's goal
setting in January.
Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she was still unclear about what exactly constituted attainable
housing. She asked for specific information regarding price, owned or rented, attached or
detached, current available stock in Lake Oswego, and location in Lake Oswego. She commented
that she wanted to keep in mind Councilor Johnson's comments about having a diversity of ages in
the existing neighborhoods.
Councilor Hennagin commented that the group thought of providing a variety of housing types
that would be attractive to different people, from multi -family to cottages to pocket neighborhoods.
He remarked that Councilor Olson's concern regarding budgeting and goal setting only came into
play if the Council asked staff to do any work. He pointed out that the Council supporting a
volunteer group starting the dialog would not affect goal setting or budgeting.
Councilor Olson clarified that she was referring to issues such as the zoning research Mayor
Hoffman mentioned that staff was doing and the staffing crunch in the Planning Department. She
commented that, to her, it was a matter of setting priorities and sticking with them. She indicated
that, while she was not saying that this should not be a priority, she did not think that the
discussion tonight was sufficient to say that it was a priority.
Councilor Moncrieff clarified that her main question was did they know how much affordable
housing the community needed. She pointed out that the different age groups might each need
something different. She indicated that studies saying how many attainable units per capita Lake
Oswego should have would be helpful information to her.
Mayor Hoffman held that the staff impact would be relatively minimal, as it was really an effort to
inform goal setting in January. He agreed with Councilor Moncrieff that the Council needed
information as it moved forward. He noted that they could get information from the volunteers and
City staff, as staff was interested in the topic and willing to work on it.
Councilor Tierney suggested considering these ideas in the Comprehensive Plan update.
Councilor Jordan acknowledged that the Foothills conversation informed the question of how
many units the community needed. She commented that the discussion needed to include also
talking about infill in a different way. She spoke of not focusing only on tearing down a house and
replacing it with one or more houses but rather looking at how to develop a neighborhood so that it
maintained its continuity yet added walkability and housing diversity. She mentioned the
philosophical question of how the Council would like to see the community as a whole blossom.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16
October 20, 2009
Councilor Johnson observed that attainable housing was a huge topic, which the Council could
spend a lot of time discussing. She suggested that all interested parties think about how to better
define the discussion in light of Council's upcoming goal setting and need to create concrete and
definable goals. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that the Council needed to make sure that it
set goals and took action so that it did not end up having the same discussion in five years. She
spoke of developing smaller goals that the Council could address next year and discussing the
larger goals and broader vision as part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan's framing of the discussion as a question of
whether they were trying to build as many affordable housing units as possible or revisioning
neighborhoods as a place of multi-age people with different homes.
Mayor Hoffman reiterated that getting information from the study group and staff would help the
Council make decisions about taking concrete steps in 2010. He observed that they could
continue to have interesting conversations but, until the Council obtained data on neighborhood
reactions and how to achieve affordable housing, they would just be having interesting
conversations. He asked how much staff time an attainable housing goal would take.
Mayor Hoffman asked if there was Council support for Councilor Tierney's suggestion to move
forward at a deliberate speed and Councilor Johnson's comments about getting information for
goal setting in January. He acknowledged Councilor Olson's concerns.
Mr. McIntyre indicated that this direction was consistent with what staff expected to hear at the
Council pre -goal setting meeting in December in terms of which issues the Council wanted staff to
get ready for a more informed Council discussion in January. He indicated to Councilor Olson
that he was fine with this Council request in terms of staff time.
The Council indicated its support to move forward.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
8:28 p.m.
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.1.1 Neighbors Helping Neighbors
Councilor Tierney reported that Neighbors Helping Neighbors had a strong turnout this weekend
of over 100 volunteers, who did a lot of good work. He recognized that a large number of the
volunteers were members of the Lake Oswego Municipal Employees Association.
9.1.2 Open House
Councilor Hennagin announced Clackamas County Commissioner Ann Lininger's Open House
and Tea on Wednesday, November 4, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on the Northwest Housing Alternatives
campus. He indicated that attendees could learn more about the Annie Ross House programs and
Clackamas County's efforts to prevent homelessness.
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
Mayor Hoffman reported on the Reserves Steering Committee all day meeting that he attended a
week ago. He indicated that it appeared that the Core 4 was heading towards supporting the State
agency's recommendation of 20,000 to 25,000 acres of urban reserves. He mentioned that the
designation of Stafford Basin was still up in the air.
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16
October 20, 2009
10.1.1 Public Affairs Manager Introduction
Mr. McIntyre introduced Christine Kirk, the City's new Public Affairs Manager. He reviewed
her resume, noting that she worked with various Multnomah County offices and had both a
bachelor's and a master's degree in policy and management. He said that her start date was
November 9.
He reminded the Council that Ms. Kirk would also manage the City's intergovernmental relations
process. He mentioned that the lobbyist whom the City had on retainer would visit with staff and
the Council members in November to discuss where to focus lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C.,
on behalf of the City.
Ms. Kirk mentioned how encouraging she found the Council's goals and commitment to engaging
the public and listening to the people in making informed decisions. Mr. Donaldson mentioned
that, in the City's thorough hiring process, Ms. Kirk rose to the top of over 100 applicants for the
position. Mayor Hoffman welcomed Ms. Kirk.
10.1.2 News Media Report
Mr. McIntyre referenced the lightening strike of the tree near the Oswego Grill that occurred this
weekend. He commented that what was interesting about it was that news media reported the
event before anybody at the City, including the police and fire chiefs, knew about it. Apparently no
one called LOCOM.
Mayor Hoffman commented that Capt. Forman mentioned to him that, with the advent of You
Tube and cell phone video cameras, information got to the news media before it came to the police
station.
10.1.3 Quarterly Financial Update — 2009/2010 Budget
Mayor Hoffman invited the citizen Budget Committee members present to come forward, Chair
Ron Smith, Jeff Gudman, and Dan Williams.
Mr. McIntyre recalled that staff had made the commitment to the Council and the Budget
Committee to provide more frequent financial reports through monthly written reports in the Council
Digest and quarterly oral reports at Council meetings. He reported that the City was doing fine
financially. He had no concerns about any spending trends and patterns so far.
He said that their spending was where they expected it to be one-quarter into the year. He
discussed the revenues, noting that revenue streams came in intermittently. He mentioned that
some revenue streams were relatively predictable, while others, such as franchise fees, came in
once or twice a year. He noted the three major chunks of the property tax revenue. He explained
that the second spreadsheet showed what staff anticipated coming in based upon prior years'
trends.
COUNCIL/COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Ms. Bryck clarified to Councilor Tierney that the $30 million figure for the general fund (p. 157)
for property taxes collected during the last fiscal year included $24 million for the budget plus the
funds for both the City and the LORA bonded debt funds.
Councilor Tierney indicated that the report format was closer to what he expected and gave him a
good feel for how things were doing.
Ms. Bryck indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff would transfer the $2.8 million payment from
Tigard for its buy in into the water partnership from its temporary location in the Water fund to the
Water Supply Partnership fund, which was a new fund this year.
Ms. Bryck clarified to Councilor Tierney that the debt service in the Wastewater fund that was
493% of the budget had to do with the timing of the bond anticipation notes. The City received the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16
October 20, 2009
new bond funding of $60 million in the last fiscal year but it did not pay off the notes until the
beginning of July. Staff would do a budget adjustment to move the money to its proper location.
Councilor Tierney commented that the issue of transfers further confused him. He suggested that
staff provide the Council with a written account of what items (not numbers) transferred in and out
of the general fund and other funds. Ms. Bryck indicated that she would provide that information.
Mr. McIntyre mentioned that the full cost allocation study authorized by the Council was currently
in draft form. He indicated that one of the first tasks of the new Finance Director would be to
condense the 300 pages of data into a manageable form that would show the Council how the
transfers worked today and how staff would readjust the transfers to reflect what was really
happening. Councilor Tierney commented that he thought that the numbers supported the
transfers. He wanted to know the concepts.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Chair Smith that he had no changes in his assumptions, as everything
appeared to be on track. He mentioned that at the midyear he would look more critically at some
of the public works and engineering issues.
Chair Smith concurred with Councilor Tierney regarding the reports but wondered why the
budgeted number and the actual number for the beginning fund balance were not the same for all
the funds. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the budgeted number was what staff thought was going
to happen and the actual number was the true number. He confirmed to Chair Smith that when
the Budget Committee created the budget in June, not all the information was there. Therefore,
when the final numbers came in to close the fiscal year, the numbers were different.
Chair Smith asked to see a mechanism put in place so that the Committee dealt with the actual
numbers in June in order to obtain a better picture of what was going on. He pointed out that the
Committee based its decisions on distribution. He held that 174% or greater was too much
variance between the budgeted and the actual numbers when five of the funds came in at the
same amount.
Mr. McIntyre pointed out that this last budget cycle has been a maturing process with lessons he
hoped would improve the next budget cycle beginning next month. He observed that whenever the
staff was wrong, it was wrong to the good, and not to the bad. He indicated that discovering that
the City had higher beginning fund balances was a good report, and not a bad report. He
concurred with Chair Smith that decision makers should be told what funds they had available to
allocate as appropriate.
He confirmed to Chair Smith that the report reflected the budget supplements.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Chair Smith that the City would get the increased tax money from
increasing the annexed property's value from $300,000 to $900,000 when the owners divided the
lots and constructed homes.
Mr. Gudman mentioned that, in his e-mail questions, he too asked why the budgeted and actual
numbers in the beginning fund balances were off. He supported Chair Smith's request. He asked
why several categories for the revenue numbers in the general fund (p.157) for the full year did not
tie off to the additional information in the separate schedule.
Mr. McIntyre commented that sometimes staff journaled back to the previous fiscal year revenues
that came in at the beginning of the new fiscal year in July and August. He explained that, for the
revenue forecasting chart, the system provided data on the revenues that actually came in in July,
including those revenues that staff would later journal back to the prior fiscal year. He indicated
that staff would fine-tune the reporting mechanism.
Mr. Gudman commented that what Mr. McIntyre explained made excellent sense. He clarified that
he was asking was why the budget number for a full year in one report was different from the
budget number for a full year in a different report. Ms. Bryck explained that she created this report
manually and, while she would check it out, the different numbers probably came from her
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16
October 20, 2009
grabbing the wrong numbers from the summary line items. She indicated that she did not insert a
line in her report for the $157,000 expected for the Energy Trust, which was included in the budget.
Mr. Gudman congratulated Mr. McIntyre and Ms. Bryck on their work. He observed that the
reports were getting better. He commented that he thought that the Budget Committee and the
Council would benefit from a consolidated citywide summary total of inflows and outflows.
Ms. Bryck indicated to Mr. Gudman that the $100,000, encumbered in the SDC fund (p.162) but
not in the budget, was the cost for the Foothills boat dock. She described how the money ended
up on the SDC account, and stated that she has moved it back to the Parks account where it
belonged.
Ms. Bryck indicated to Mr. Gudman that the Maintenance Services capital budget showing that
the City has spent 107% of it in the first quarter was another example of something put on the
wrong line; those budgeted funds belonged in materials and services, and not in capital.
She indicated that the Maintenance Services materials and services budget (currently showing 9%
spent) would catch up by the end of the year. She mentioned that some of miscellaneous
professional and technical item costs related to projects that have not yet started.
Mr. Gudman asked what the status was of the request at the Budget Committee for the City
Attorney to clear up some of the language in the Percent for Art program ordinance. Mr. Boone
reported that Mr. Powell told him that it was an issue for the Council or the City Manager, but one
which he recommended doing.
Mr. Gudman commented that just looking at the numbers themselves in the capital budget made it
difficult to tell what the status of the projects was. He mentioned that he intended to meet with Mr.
Wheeler to go over the reporting mechanism because knowing what the status of the projects were
during the budget process would be helpful, as it might lead to making different decisions on where
to spend the money. Ms. Bryck indicated that she would be working with the Assistant City
Engineer who had a chart showing project status and financial information to provide that
information.
Ms. Bryck reported to Mr. Gudman that her research into his question regarding the 36% spent in
the personnel account of the Street fund (p. 161) found that the City has been paying an employee
through the Street fund, whom she believed should be paid through the Surface Water fund. She
said that when they moved him out and annualized the summer hires in the Street Department, the
percentage would come in around 24%.
Mr. Williams said that all his questions have been addressed. He commented that he thought that
these quarterly meetings would be very helpful and instructive in going forward into the budget
process.
Councilor Olson asked for clarification on why the contingency line in each fund had a budgeted
amount and an actual amount of zero in all cases, when the City used some contingency money in
the supplemental budget. Mr. McIntyre acknowledged that the report was somewhat misleading
in showing that the City spent no contingency money, when in fact it did. He explained that, due to
their accounting method, once they rolled the contingency money into the new line item authorized
by the Council, they could not then show the actual in the contingency fund.
Councilor Olson referenced Mr. Gudman's question about the Percent for Art ordinance
clarification. She indicated that she knew that Mr. Powell had been going to work on it but she did
not know whether he was waiting for direction from Council to tell him to fix the ordinance.
Mr. McIntyre commented, from his point of view, that the ordinance was contradictory. Councilor
Tierney recalled that Mr. Powell indicated that he would respond to the question by providing
background information when the Council asked for it. He suggested that the Council ask for the
information.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16
October 20, 2009
Mayor Hoffman indicated that his reading of the e-mail chain led him to believe that Mr. Powell
was going to provide the Council with background information about the language and that the
Council would discuss the policy issues raised by Councilor Jordan. Mr. McIntyre said that he
would check with Mr. Powell tomorrow. He noted that a policy question for a future Council
discussion was whether a real estate purchase by the City should be included in the Percent for
Arts.
Councilor Jordan observed out that the revenue stream for building permits was ahead of their
expectation. Ms. Bryck indicated that more building activity occurred in the summer with July and
August tending to be the largest months. She commented that they were where they expected to
be at this point.
10.1.2 Review of Council Schedule
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
111�
6k�'t6
Robyn 6hristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16
October 20, 2009
LAKE OSWf
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 17, 2009
wEwN
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on
November 17, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present:
Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and
Johnson. Councilor Jordan was excused.
Staff Present:
Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Police Captain Mike Hammons; Bonnie Hirshberger, Citizen
Information Coordinator; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Gary
Evans, Asst Parks & Recreation Director; David Donaldson, Asst City
Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Papadopoulos,
Maintenance Services Director; David Gilbey, Water Quality Program
Coordinator
Youth Council
Present:
Youth Councilor Chandrana
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Distinguished Service Award presented to Captain Michael Hammons
Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Captain Michael Hammons in
appreciation for his 25 years of service. He reviewed Captain Hammons' history with the Lake
Oswego Police Department, beginning in 1985. He thanked him for his service to the citizens of
Lake Oswego.
Captain Hammons observed that part of the Athenian Oath challenged the citizens to constantly
question and challenge their leaders in order to build a better society. He commented that
nowhere has he seen this part of the oath followed so completely as by the citizens of Lake
Oswego.
3.2 2009 Lake Oswego Photo Contest winner recognition and photo display
Mayor Hoffman presented awards to the first place winners of the 2009 Lake Oswego Photo
Contest, and reviewed a brief history of each winner. These included Jhon Williams (Life in Lake
Oswego, "Christmas on the Lake"), Kevin Brown (Lake Oswego Places, "Archway at George
Rogers Park"), Michael Berger (Lake Oswego's Events and Activities, "Nightlife Downtown"), Chris
Thompson (People of Lake Oswego "Battling the Elements"), Greg Seitz (Potpourri, "Train"), and
Jim Hokinson (Historic Photos, "Lake Oswego Police Cars").
Mayor Hoffman also named the Runners Up and the Honorable Mentions. Ms. Hirshberger
thanked all who entered the 170 photos and the 2,300 people who voted.
3.3 Update on Foothills Dock
Ms. Gilmer commented that, while this project has been on going for some time, the end was in
sight. She reviewed the project's history, beginning with a grant award in 2005 for $529,000 to
design and construct the dock. She mentioned that it took a year and a half to move through the
public process and achieve a design that satisfied all interests.
She explained that, after awarding the construction bid to Axis Crane, the City began construction
in May 2008 within the in -water work period for the Willamette River (July 1 through October 31).
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 26
November 17, 2009
However, when the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a letter of intent to sue the US
Army Corps of Engineers over their permit process and fish concerns, the Corps suspended the
City's work permit, which halted the project.
She indicated that the City stored the gangway, dock, and pilings for installation in 2009 following
the Corps' re-evaluation of the City's permit. But then the Northwest Environmental Defense
Center filed a letter of complaint against the Corps for another issue related to the dock, which
went to District Court. Although the judge ruled in favor of the Corps and allowed Lake Oswego to
have a valid permit, the Council decided to wait on installation until after the 60 -day appeal period
expired in September 2009.
She said that the City got 90% of the dock installed before the in -water work period expired on
October 31. She explained that, while installing the dock pilings, six of the ten piles hit bedrock
before the contractor could sink them to the 30 foot depth needed for sufficient stabilization. She
recalled that staff had known that that was a possibility but opted not to do the geotechnical
analysis because the analysis would cost as much as driving the piles; if they hit bedrock, then
they would simply proceed with the work needed to drive the piles in.
She indicated that the Army Corps denied the City's request for an extension of the in -water work
period. Therefore, they needed to suspend the work until next summer.
She recalled that staff had explained to Council in an Executive Session before construction began
that waiting until next summer to install the dock would cost over $65,000 in storage fees and a
delay of work claim, plus require re -negotiating the construction contract for increased labor costs.
She reviewed the costs of the two options for storing the materials: just under $40,000 for storage
at Foothills Park, and over $116,000 for offsite storage. She described the process that the
contractor would use to remove the pilings and store them onsite, which saved on re -mobilization
costs and storage fees next year. She indicated that these costs left the City with approximately
$30,000 remaining in the grant. She recalled that the City has only spent around $20,000 of its
own money for design work several years ago.
She recalled staff speculation in 2006 that the City might have to spend $100,000 to $129,000 of
its own money to install the piles if they hit bedrock. That was now the case, and staff estimated a
cost of $106,000 to complete the project. She mentioned that the Marine Board was willing to talk
about splitting the cost with the City.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Evans indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractors had to remove all the pilings,
even the two securely installed, because of safety concerns.
Ms. Gilmer clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the City would have had to spend $65,000 in
storage fees and contractor costs if it had decided not to build the dock this fall. The City obtained
some savings by storing the materials on site. Mr. Evans mentioned additional savings of not
having to re -negotiate the contract because the City did not stop the work.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractor had the necessary equipment to
do the work, but the in -water work permit did not allow work beyond October 31.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that there would be no increased labor costs because
the City was still operating under the original contract. She clarified to the Councilor that, in
March 2007, the Council approved a budget of $129,000. However, staff did not re -budget the
project the next year because the actual bid cost came in considerably under the grant money.
Mr. McIntyre explained that it was a timing issue within the budget process. He indicated that this
item would be in next year's budget because they could not do any in -water work until July 1.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26
November 17, 2009
He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the hotel/motel tax revenues were a possible funding
source, except that the City has dedicated all the hotel/motel tax revenues for the next four years
to the restoration of the furnace.
Ms. Gilmer reiterated that staff would make a formal request of the Marine Board with the hope
that it might split the cost with the City.
• Introduction of New Finance Director
Mr. Donaldson introduced Ursula Euler as the City's new Finance Director. He reviewed her
education and her background in finance in both the public and private sectors. Mayor Hoffman
welcomed Ms. Euler to the City.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Johnson moved the consent agenda. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [6-0]
4.1 REPORTS
4.1.1 Resignation of Phil Burgess from the Historic Resources Advisory Board
Action: Accept Resignation
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 09-63, initiating a Partition Plat Vacation Request for 775, 787, and 799
Country Club Road
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-63
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 September 8, 2009, special meeting
4.3.2 September 14, 2009, special meeting
4.3.3 September 15, 2009, regular meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Scot Schoen, 13521 Snowberry Court
He noted that, since his last visit, Ms. Gilmer has provided the Council with several options and
costs for a Westside off leash dog area. He indicated that the 40 families for whom he has
become the defacto spokesperson were still looking for a dog park on this side of town. He asked
where they went from here.
Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff was waiting to get the three options on the Council agenda for
feedback on which option to pursue. He noted that the matter also required a budget allocation.
Mr. Schoen acknowledged that Council action might take several months, but pointed out that, in
the meantime, dog owners had no place to take their dogs. He indicated that staff has informed
him that going back to Westlake Park was not an option, even though several dog owners have
lobbied for it. He clarified that there were actually more than 40 families who wanted to see this
move forward in the City's process.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26
November 17, 2009
Mayor Hoffman said that he would work with staff to get the dog park on a study session agenda.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Appeal of a Development Review Commission decision to deny a one -parcel partition
for the purpose of lot legalization, lot line adjustment, variance, and tree removal [AP
09-04/LU 09-0009]. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and the adjacent
vacant parcel to the east.
Mr. Powell reviewed the standard quasi-judicial land use hearing procedure and criteria and the
public testimony time limits. He asked if any Council member wished to declare any conflicts of
interest, bias, or ex parte contacts.
Councilors Olson and Tierney each declared a site visit. There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Andreades gave a PowerPoint presentation presenting the basic facts of the case. She
began with the vicinity zoning map and identified the locations of the two lots in question Tax Lot
1902 (seeking lot legalization) and Tax Lot 1900 (seeking a lot line adjustment).
She explained that because the 33 -foot functional width of Tax Lot 1902 did not meet the minimum
65 foot lot width requirement for the R-10 zone, the applicant had to look to LOC 50.01.030(3) to
legalize the lot. This provision allowed an exemption from the lot width and depth requirements if
the potential development would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood
through noise, scale, traffic, parking, privacy buffers, and obstructions of views.
She noted the location of Tax Lot 2600, whose owners contended that the potential development
on Tax Lot 1902 would obstruct their view in violation of the cited code section.
She referenced the DRC findings in noting that both staff and the Commission agreed that a
potential development would impact the Yearsleys' property (Tax Lot 2600). However, the
question was whether that impact was a significant negative impact. She explained that an
assessment of whether the proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood pattern
was the tool to use in answering that question.
She indicated that the staff found the evidence submitted to the DRC with respect to the
neighborhood pattern sufficient to recommend approval. She showed the topographic map on
which staff relied in determining the neighborhood development pattern and concluding that the
proposed development would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern compared to what could
be built on the lot if it met the width requirement.
She said that the DRC denied the application and found that there was insufficient evidence to
demonstrate what kind of structure was proposed or to demonstrate what the neighborhood pattern
was for comparison. She indicated that the questions for the Council were whether there was
sufficient evidence to establish the pattern of development in the neighborhood, and whether the
proposed development would be consistent with that pattern.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Ms. Andreades explained to Mayor Hoffman that because this lot did not sit on a public street,
technically its width was zero, as the Code measured lot width from a public street. However,
functionally its width was 33 feet. She confirmed that there was an easement to get from the road
to the tax lot.
She clarified to Councilor Hennagin that Mr. Sundeleaf, the original owner of several lots on
Phantom Bluff Court, deeded off the lots and created them by `mets and bounds' (a description of
the lot). She indicated that the Glasses now owned 16715 Phantom Bluff Court, which had been
Mr. Sundeleaf's property.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26
November 17, 2009
She indicated that the Yearsleys owned a thin strip of land for lake access, which was part of the
Sundeleaf deeded properties. She said that the lot line adjustment, which would be subsequent to
the lot legalization, was between 16715 Phantom Bluff Court and the Puterbaugh property (Tax Lot
1902).
She confirmed Mayor Hoffman's observation that it was a fireplace lot line adjustment. She
explained that Mr. Puterbaugh and Mr. Camerman (the owner of 16715 Phantom Bluff Court
before the Glasses) had a private agreement as part of a condition of approval for his lot
legalization in 2003 to make sure that there was three feet of separation between his historic
fireplace and his lot line. She said that the plat was recorded without meeting that condition; this
lot line adjustment would meet that condition.
Councilor Tierney asked if the City had any precedents on lot legalizations under these
circumstances. Ms. Andreades said that the Glass property should have dealt with the issue of
zero lot width due to no public street at the time of its lot legalization in 2003, but that did not
happen because the functional lot width and depth met the zone lot width and depth requirements.
Mayor Hoffman commented that the City has legalized lots before, including in First Addition. Ms.
Andreades said that all the Phantom Bluff Court lots came in for legalization in 1991, but the plats
for the legalized lots were never recorded, and eventually became void. She indicated that the
1991 lot legalization was not done with the exception for a private street.
Councilor Tierney asked why staff recommended its conditions of approval. Ms. Andreades
explained that the original conditions of approval listed on p.50 were the standard conditions of
approval for a development application. She indicated that the conditions listed on pp. 112-113
were the additional conditions of approval that staff recommended to the DRC in response to the
Commission's concern about obstruction of view.
Ms. Andreades explained that, at the continued hearing, staff recommended requiring the
applicant's proposed shed roof (sloping from 35 feet to 24 feet) as a condition of approval in order
to minimize the obstruction of view to the Yearsleys (Exhibit F-13).
She indicated to Councilor Tierney that she thought that this was the first time that this issue has
come up in a lot legalization request. She noted that everyone agreed that the point of reference in
defining the obstruction of view would be from one particular property. She reiterated that in
determining whether that impact was significant or not, staff looked at the total neighborhood
pattern.
Mr. Powell noted the additional condition of approval that the City not allow the applicant to use
the height exception allowable under the Code (p. 5, November 5, 2009 report).
Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that frequently the City found that an access
driveway was deficient in its turning radius for fire apparatus. The Fire Department's standard
condition was to require a residential fire sprinkler system.
Councilor Hennagin asked, given that the lot legalization and the building permit were two
separate and distinct issues, whether, in order to legalize a lot, the Code permitted the Council to
put restrictions on the building over and above what the zone would allow for a building permit.
Ms. Andreades clarified that the issue was the lot's inability to meet the zone's standards for the
minimum lot width and depth required for a building permit. She explained that LOC 50.01.030(3)
allowed an exemption for a property not meeting its zone's dimensional standards if an applicant
could show that the lot, if legalized and developed, would not have a significant negative impact.
Councilor Hennagin commented that it seemed contradictory to have an ordinance that prohibited
a property owner from cutting down trees in order to protect a view, and an ordinance that
restricted development in order to protect someone's view. He observed that the DRC appeared to
have made a subjective decision in concluding that the drawings depicting the shape and height of
the proposed residence demonstrated that the house would obstruct the view too much.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26
November 17, 2009
Ms. Andreades pointed out that the question was what a significant negative impact was. Sh
indicated that the DRC did not find sufficient evidence to establish what the neighborhood patt
was for use in determining whether the acknowledged impact would be a significant negative
impact or not. She reiterated that staff found sufficient evidence to conceptualize what that we
be but the DRC did not find the evidence sufficient.
Mr. Powell clarified that this Code section allowed the Council to impose conditions on a lot
legalization in order to achieve consistency with the existing development pattern in the vicinity
determined that the proposed development's impacts on views went beyond the development
pattern of the neighborhood. He indicated that those conditions could be more stringent than what
the Code would otherwise apply to the lot.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Code did allow the DRC to continue the hearing for
additional evidence, and the Council to remand the application to the DRC for additional evidence
within the 120 -day clock. Ms. Andreades indicated that the DRC did continue the hearing and
made a site visit in the interim; the applicant could have submitted additional evidence at that time.
Mayor Hoffman asked how staff and/or the DRC construed the term 'neighborhood.' Ms.
Andreades said that this Code section did not define 'neighborhood.' She indicated that she
would define the neighborhood in this case as Phantom Bluff Court.
Councilor Tierney indicated that he read the DRC minutes and findings as defining
'neighborhood' as one home, and applied obstruction of view to one lot. Ms. Andreades indicated
that they could measure obstruction of view from one home, but the question of whether the
obstruction created a significant negative impact required looking at the neighborhood pattern.
Mayor Hoffman asked what staff's interpretation was of the existing development pattern in the
vicinity. Ms. Andreades described the existing development pattern as large lots with large homes
spread horizontally across the lot and oriented to the lake. She indicated that staff looked at what
obstruction of view would occur if the lot were developed in that pattern. Ms. Andreades
confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the two lots to the northeast were developable, and that the City
could anticipate a replication of the house at 16661 on those two lots.
Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Tierney that the width of the lot at the point where the
Puterbaughs proposed siting the house was wide enough to constitute a legal lot if Phantom Bluff
Court were a public street.
Councilor Olson asked if the owners of 16661 owned the two lots to the northeast. Ms.
Andreades said that, while she did not know, she thought it likely. Mayor Hoffman pointed out
that the lot adjacent to 16661 was illegal because it lacked access to a public road. Ms.
Andreades noted that none of the lots on Phantom Bluff Court had access to a public road.
Councilor Olson asked how staff's recommendation reconciled with staff's interpretation of a
consistent neighborhood pattern of development characterized by large lots with large homes
oriented horizontally to the lake. Ms. Andreades acknowledged that the combination of setbacks
and lot configuration forced the applicant to orient his house in a northwest -southeast direction,
rather than horizontally across the lot. She explained that the question staff considered was
whether orienting the proposed development horizontally would create more of a view obstruction
than the proposed orientation, which staff concluded was a possibility.
Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that staff considered consistency with the
neighborhood pattern only as it related to the view from the Yearsleys' property because that was
the issue that came up. Everyone agreed that the development would not have a significant
negative impact on the other factors referenced in the Code section.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.
APPLICANT
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26
November 17, 2009
• Gary Shepherd, attorney representing the applicant/appellant, 3115 SE Salmon Street,
Portland, Oregon
He mentioned that the Puterbaughs have paid real property taxes at developable values on Tax
Lot 1902 since they purchased the property in 1972. In addition, the Puterbaughs have contributed
annually to the Lake Corporation and contributed substantially to the construction of sanitary
sewer, water, and street improvements along Phantom Bluff Court.
He pointed out that this property, which had been part of the larger Sundeleaf estate (Tax Lots
1900, 1902, 1800, and 1905), was created prior to the City adopting partition regulations using the
customary sale and recording process. He concurred that the lot did not meet the present day lot
dimension requirements, but neither did the Glass property (Tax Lots 1900 and1905), which was
legalized in 2003 through a similar lot legalization process.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Glass property was illegal for the same reasons as the
Puterbaugh property was illegal. When Mr. Sundeleaf sold off Tax Lots 1902 and 1800, the
remainder of his property became illegal because the City deemed it a partition. He explained that,
due to circumstances beyond Mr. Puterbaugh's control, the lot legalization approval he received
from the City Council in 1991 was not finally recorded, which necessitated the current application.
He commented that the legislative history clearly indicated that the lot legalization standards found
in LOC 50.01.030 were created and amended specifically to address situations in which a property
owner was caught in the middle, such as having a lot on a private street that did not meet the City's
lot dimension requirements. He referenced the legislative history in noting that the City's intent
was that subsection 3 would apply to substantially substandard lots, and that such a lot would
require additional review with respect to negative impacts.
He indicated that he did not think that this 13,000 square foot lot in an R-10 zone was substantially
substandard. He noted that it substantially exceeded the lot length requirements. Even with its
narrowness, there was ample room on the lot to site a dwelling and meet all setback requirements.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the lot was 50 feet wide at the point where Mr. Puterbaugh
proposed siting the house (p.305). The property width increased to over 70 feet down by the lake.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the minimum lot width in an R-10 zone was 65 feet, which meant
that the lot width at the site of the house should also be 65 feet, yet it was only 50 feet wide at that
point.
Mr. Shepherd indicated to Councilor Olson that they would stay away from the 70 -foot wide area
because it was on a cliff.
He discussed the direction provided in the legislative history regarding the application of the
standard, namely that the legalization of the lot not have a significant negative impact on the
surrounding neighborhood and that it be consistent with the development pattern on adjacent
properties. He argued that the standard allowed the review body to impose additional conditions in
order to meet the standard.
He contended that the staff correctly interpreted the legislative history and the plain language of
the standard in finding that the application met the standard when correctly applied. He stated
that, based on his review of the DRC minutes and findings, he did not think that the DRC correctly
applied the standard. He argued that the Commission's focus on determining whether the design
significantly impacted the Yearsleys' view, as Chair Heredia directed it to do, was the incorrect
focus.
He indicated that the exhibits in the room were the evidence regarding the neighborhood
development pattern that the applicant provided to the DRC at the evidentiary hearing, per the
DRC's request at the initial hearing for additional evidence. He stated that, at the evidentiary
hearing, the DRC denied his request to explain the applicant's evidence orally, and made its
decision without that explanation.
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that his written description of the evidence was in the record.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26
November 17, 2009
He noted that the essential criterion to consider was the pattern of development, as shown in the
exhibits and on p.323. He pointed out the pattern of building homes up the hillside with the lower
homes partially or fully obstructing the lake views of the homes higher up the hill. He argued that
this tiered pattern of development occurred not only on Phantom Bluff Court but also in the
Palisades neighborhood and across the lake as well.
He reviewed the photos in the record showing the views from homes along Phantom Bluff Court to
the lake (pp.313 - 315). He noted that the views were of trees, houses, and vegetation with no one
having an unobstructed view of the lake. He reiterated that clearly the pattern of development was
obstructed views and tiered housing development.
He pointed out that many of the properties in this R-10 district could be subdivided, which meant
more development in the area.
He presented the depictions requested by the DRC of what the proposed house might look like on
the property. He indicated the computer renditions showed the home built into the hillside. He
mentioned the two depictions on p. 283 and p. 284 of an actual picture taken from the Yearsleys'
residence looking out towards the lake, which showed the view through the trees and what
unobstructed view of the lake remained for the Yearsleys. He noted that the Yearsleys also had to
look through the trees on their own property to see the lake.
He presented views to the west of the Puterbaughs. He mentioned the 80 -foot view from the Glass
property that remained, even with the proposed development (p.284), and the 35 -foot corridor view
between the Puterbaugh proposed home and the Smith home.
Ms. Andreades clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the picture on p.284 showed the concept of the
structure that would result with the second set of conditions, which required the shed roof to slope
from 35 feet down to 24 feet (p.113). She indicated that the structure would not be taller, wider, or
closer to the street than shown on p.284. She explained that the setbacks prevented the house
from sitting closer to the street.
Mr. Shepherd presented representations of the views that would remain of the lake from the
Yearsleys' residence. He commented that the Puterbaughs' proposal represented only a small
sliver of those views. He noted that only a small portion of the proposed house would be visible
through the trees.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the home shown on p.284 was conceptual based upon the
conditions that the applicant voluntarily recommended be imposed on his application. He
confirmed that the conditions were acceptable to the applicant.
He described the process his team used in conceptualizing the home. He discussed the elevation
drawings. He pointed out the building of the home into the hill and low down on the property. He
indicated their belief that, although they conceptualized the home at an elevation of 211 feet, they
could go down to 209 feet. He emphasized that they were trying to do what they could to make the
views over the house as good as possible.
He mentioned that he had also thought that the lot legalization and the building permit were two
separate processes. He noted the work they did in response to the DRC's request for additional
information about the neighborhood views, the development pattern, and the proposed
development. He said that the DRC did not allow him to review that information either.
He argued that the standards specifically allowed for the Council and any legal authority to impose
conditions to mitigate any development impacts. He mentioned that staff suggested two
conditions, to which the applicant added several others in order to lessen the impact as much as
possible to the Yearsleys.
He described the proposed development as a two-story house with a basement and smaller than
the house size typically found in the neighborhood. He said that the applicant recommended to the
DRC that he waive all right to a height exception, which would keep the home at a 35 -foot
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26
November 17, 2009
maximum height with the front at 12 feet high. He indicated that they would lower the proposed
18- foot high garage to 12 feet.
He reiterated that they were building the house low down on the property, just far enough back
from the cliff to allow safe passage, and into the hill as much as possible. He pointed out that,
while they could build a long narrow house higher up on the property and still meet the setbacks,
doing so would block the views extremely.
He stated that he did not think that the DRC's findings were correct. He argued that it was not an
evidentiary issue, but rather it was an issue of the DRC not being able to agree on the conditions to
apply to this application, and focusing on the narrow view of the Yearsleys' property while ignoring
the panoramic view that remained. He showed the views over the Puterbaugh property, the Smith
house and the Glass house, none of which would be impacted by this development. He contended
that there was plenty of evidence provided regarding the neighborhood development patterns.
He referenced Councilor Tierney's question about precedents. He cited a 2004 lot legalization in
First Addition, in which the home also fit within the lot setbacks without any variances.
He commented that he thought that the DRC also had trouble establishing a point at which to
measure height. He suggested setting an elevation cap of 209 feet above sea level instead. He
noted on a map that the top of a shed on the Glass property was at 214 feet in elevation. He
indicated that the pictures showed an elevation height of 211 feet, which they believed they could
drop down to 209 feet, depending on where they struck bedrock.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Shepherd clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the garage roof as shown on p. 283 was 13
feet high. He explained that the garage appeared taller because it was closest to the street
frontage. He mentioned that the home would be set a few feet lower than the garage because they
could build it into the hillside. He reiterated that setting an elevation above sea level cap resolved
the issue of where to measure from.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he worked on construction crews in rock in Lake Oswego
years ago. He commented that the applicant might find rock that would explode the construction
costs. Mr. Shepherd noted that their proposed condition was to go down as far as practicable
under the conditions.
Mr. Shepherd indicated to Councilor Olson that drawing showed the peak elevation of the shed
on the Glass property at 214.7 feet, and the proposed garage on the Puterbaugh property at 211 to
211.5 feet. He explained that the garage looked taller than the shed because of the way the
picture was represented but the drawing elevations indicated otherwise. He reiterated their hope
to lower the elevation of the home by a couple more feet, which would be five feet lower than the
shed.
He noted that the street, Phantom Bluff Court, had an elevation of rising 216 feet to 222 feet. He
explained that it was the elevation numbers that really mattered, as a 35 -foot home sitting high up
on the lot had a higher elevation than a 35 -foot home sitting lower down on the lot. He noted on a
drawing that the ridge on the Smith property was at 201 feet, while an existing garage elsewhere
was at 228 feet.
Ms. Andreades clarified that, because of a cross slope on the Glass property, the picture showing
the shed placement was not showing the same elevation.
Mr. Powell addressed the issue of Mr. Shepherd's assertion that he was not allowed to speak
before the DRC. He explained that the DRC continued the hearing for written evidence only. He
read from the DRC minutes (p.25), which stated that the DRC was reluctant to re -open the hearing
to allow Mr. Shepherd to answer questions because that it had to re -open the hearing to everyone
else as well.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26
November 17, 2009
Mayor Hoffman described how the aerial photo of the neighborhood (Slide 3) provided a more
accurate representation of the development pattern in the whole neighborhood than the schematic
did. Ms. Andreades explained that, because the Code section did not define the neighborhood
and vicinity, she looked only at the homes on Phantom Bluff Court in considering the development
pattern.
Councilor Hennagin indicated that he interpreted the language of LOC 30.01.030(3) as meaning
that if the proposed development was inconsistent with the existing development pattern in the
vicinity, the City could only prohibit the development if the inconsistency created a significant
negative impact.
THOSE IN SUPPPORT
• Art DeRosia, 16789 Phantom Bluff Court
He indicated that he has resided at this address for 25 of the 43 years he has lived in Lake
Oswego. He reviewed the history of Mr. Sundeleaf's property from when Mr. Sundeleaf broke off
lots for his daughters and sold off other lots. He observed that the lots did not meet City standards
at the time that Mr. Sundeleaf divided up his property. He noted that when the Yearsleys' lot was
made a legal lot, even though the lake access strip of land violated all the ordinances and the Lake
Corporation rules for frontage on the lake, Mr. Puterbaugh did not oppose its legalization.
He mentioned that the Yearsleys now objected to the legalization of Mr. Puterbaugh's lot on the
grounds that it would obstruct their view. He referenced a depiction of the Yearsleys' house and
the proposed Puterbaugh house. He acknowledged that an agreement between Mr. Glass and Mr.
Puterbaugh to make the lot wider would also make the house wider, which could obstruct the view
more. He argued that the picture showed that the house was quite narrow and would not obstruct
the view very much.
He pointed out that there were 11 lots on Phantom Bluff Court that did not meet the 25 feet on a
public way requirement for a legal lot, but they did have a 30 -foot easement off Phantom Bluff
Court on to South Shore Blvd. He argued that the neighborhood was the Palisades neighborhood,
while Phantom Bluff Court was only the vicinity, and not a neighborhood.
He confirmed that Mr. Puterbaugh has owned the property for almost 40 years. During that time,
Mr. Puterbaugh has paid property taxes, Lake Corporation dues, and contributed substantially to
the development of sewer on Phantom Bluff Court. He argued that Mr. Puterbaugh should be
allowed to build his house.
THOSE IN OPPOSITION
• Andrea Yearsley, 16586 Phantom Bluff Court
She indicated that she owned Tax Lot 1800 and the property at 16470. She stated that the plat
map incorrectly showed the property lines for Tax Lot 1800, which was adjacent to the Puterbaugh
property. She described the lines as jogging in and out, which would affect the setbacks on Mr.
Puterbaugh's property.
Ms. Andreades indicated that the map in the Council packet correctly showed the jogs in the
property line for Tax Lot 1800.
Ms. Yearsley commented that she found it interesting that the people saying that this proposed
development would not impact their view have never been on their property. She stated that their
house was designed and constructed to take advantage of the view, with seven rooms looking
directly into the view. She mentioned that none of the property owners surrounding Mr.
Puterbaugh's property ever thought that there would be an issue because it was an illegal lot,
which they were told was not a buildable parcel.
She said that they were told originally that the house would be a single level home with a walkout
basement underneath. However, the proposal was now for a two-story home with a walkout
basement.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26
November 17, 2009
She argued that the shed on the Glass property was significantly lower than the proposed new
house. She expressed her appreciation for the DRC doing a site visit, as it was difficult to see
what the effect would be from the depictions and the plat map.
She stated that much of Mr. Puterbaugh's site was very steep down to the lake. She contended
that his building pad was much smaller than it looked on the rendition.
She recalled that originally they had discussed with Mr. Puterbaugh the possibility of doing a lot
line adjustment to straighten out one of the jogs and selling him a portion of their property to make
it feasible for him to build a single level home, but it never went anywhere.
She argued that the proposed development was clearly not similar to the rest of the Phantom Bluff
Court neighborhood. She acknowledged that their street was in the general area of the Palisades
neighborhood but contended that it was a unique neighborhood on a private road.
She indicated that the two parcels to the northeast belonged to the owner of the last parcel on the
end. She stated that the owner would probably not subdivide or build on those parcels in her
lifetime.
She stated that their biggest point was that the proposed development would severely affect their
view and significantly decrease the value of their home by 20%. She reiterated that the proposed
home was very different from the rest of the neighborhood.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Ms. Yearsley indicated to Mayor Hoffman that, while the view shown in the picture on p.127
appeared to look directly at the Glass house, that was not the actual case. She said that, while the
Glass property was part of their view, the Puterbaugh property affected much of their direct view.
She described the view shed to the Mayor, using the aerial photo.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that only eight of the properties participated in the sewer LID.
She said that their house was on sewer and the house they owned next door was on septic. She
confirmed that they would have to join the LID if they built a new house on the property next door.
She said that she had known that Mr. Puterbaugh had participated in the LID, and therefore, were
aware that Mr. Puterbaugh wanted to build on his lot.
Ms. Yearsley indicated to Councilor Tierney that she thought the definition of the neighborhood
was Phantom Bluff Court.
She indicated to Councilor Olson that the people from whom they bought their lot, as well as the
adjacent property owners at the time, Mr. Camerman and Mr. Richardson, all told them that Tax
Lot 1902 was an illegal lot and could never be built on. She noted that Tax Lot 1800 was basically
a pathway to get to the lake. She said that they did not follow up with the City until three years
ago, at which time the City said that the lot would have to meet the lot criteria. She mentioned that
at that time the lot was not buildable, as it lacked road access and sewer. In addition, there were
questions about the lot being large enough to build on and meet the setback requirements.
Councilor Tierney asked whether the proposed house on Tax Lot 1902 would obstruct or limit
other neighbors' views. Ms. Yearsley indicated that it would not significantly affect the view of the
house next door. She mentioned it possibly affecting the view of the home behind their home that
fronted on South Shore. She stated that it would definitely have an adverse affect on the views of
Mr. Smith and the Glasses, but neither one wanted to talk about it right now.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Shepherd pointed out that in applying criteria that used the word `neighborhood,' one had to
define what `neighborhood' meant. He stated that he asked the DRC specifically what constituted
the neighborhood, whether it was the Palisades neighborhood or the larger vicinity around
Phantom Bluff Court. He explained that, in response to the DRC, he analyzed the views of the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26
November 17, 2009
properties along Phantom Bluff Court towards the lake, which were all obstructed views looking
through or over trees, homes, garages, shrubbery, etc.
He argued that the view that the Yearsleys currently enjoyed probably resulted from Mr.
Puterbaugh clearing the groundcover off his property. He observed that an eight foot tall shrub at
the top of the ridgeline would come close to blocking the view.
He cited a transcript of the DRC minutes in contending that, at the hearing, the DRC never focused
on the neighborhood development pattern, regardless of what the findings said. He stated that
they also did not focus on the consistency of the single-family development on the Puterbaugh
property with the tiered single-family development pattern of the neighborhood and all along the
lakeside.
He pointed out that they were not saying that they were not going to impact the Yearsleys' view.
Any residential development on the Puterbaugh property would slightly impact their view. He
emphasized that that was why the applicant proposed an extensive list of mitigating conditions that
would otherwise not apply to the application.
He stated that the question under the standard that the Council needed to answer was whether the
impact to the Yearsleys' view was consistent with the impacts to the views experienced by others
in the neighborhood. He argued that the answer was clearly `yes.' He said that there was no
evidence to the contrary. He noted the two letters in support of the Puterbaughs from other
Phantom Bluff Court residents included in the packet, and the two other neighbors who testified
orally at the DRC saying that this proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood
development pattern.
He contended that this was an issue of equity and fairness, because if the Council denied this
application, then his client would not have a legal lot that he could sell under Oregon law;
effectively, he would have nothing. He questioned whether Mr. Puterbaugh could even cut down a
tree because in order to do so, one had to be subject to the City Code. However, only legal lots
were regulated under the City Code. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh was caught in the middle, a
situation that this application process was designed to address.
He pointed out that the installation of the sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements through
the LID allowed his client to build on his property. He mentioned that his client would have built in
1972 but right after he bought the property, the City imposed a moratorium on septic systems in
this area, and he could not do so. In 1991, Mr. Puterbaugh tried to legalize the lot, but for some
reason out of his control, his plat was not finally recorded.
He noted that Mr. Glass legalized his lot three years ago and now could do whatever he wanted to
on his property, subject to the Lake Oswego Code. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh just wanted the
same rights as all the Phantom Bluff Court residents enjoyed, including the Yearsleys. He
indicated that Mr. Puterbaugh wanted to build a home there in which to live out his life. This
application represented his opportunity to do so.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Olson asked for more information on the failure to file the plat. Mr. Shepherd said that
he searched the City records but could find no records or staff reports from the time documenting
the application, other than the City knew that the application process was filed and approved. He
explained that the 1991 application involved Tax Lots 1900, 1905 and 1902. The other property
owners led the application and Mr. Puterbaugh had just gone along for the ride. He stated that Mr.
Puterbaugh did not know why the property owner representatives filed none of the plats.
Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 9:05 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
9:17 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26
November 17, 2009
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Moncrieff referenced Ms. Yearsley's statement that the neighborhood consisted of
Phantom Bluff Court. She noted that four of the neighbors supported Mr. Puterbaugh's proposal.
She commented that she has seen no evidence of a significant negative impact on the
neighborhood for any of the factors listed in the Code section, including views. She indicated that
she believed that the single-family development on a residential lot was consistent with the existing
neighborhood. She stated that she would vote to reverse the DRC decision.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he found these kinds of neighbor versus neighbor issues
the most difficult issues faced by the Council because, no matter what the Council decided, it
would have an adverse impact on one of the residents. He pointed out that, in this quasi-judicial
role, the Council had to apply the ordinance as written, and not decide based upon who would be
the most adversely impacted.
He pointed out that the ordinance required the Council to allow the legal creation of a lot unless it
would have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of the factors listed. He commented
that there was no evidence that the lot legalization would have a negative impact on scale, noise,
traffic, parking, loss of privacy or buffers (although the language was not clear on what `buffers'
meant).
He mentioned the contention that it would obstruct views, which brought into play the requirement
to consider the consistency of the development with the existing development pattern along
Phantom Bluff Court. He commented that, in order to conclude that the development was out of
place, he would have to find that the home would be substantially larger than the other homes in
the area. He stated that he could not find that the obstruction of view created by the development
represented a significant negative impact. Therefore, he would vote in favor of the appeal.
Councilor Tierney concurred with reversing the DRC decision but with the imposition of conditions
to mitigate the acknowledged negative impact. He spoke to imposing the two conditions
recommended by staff (pp. 112-113) and the voluntary conditions proposed by the applicant and
listed on p. 4 of Mr. Shepherd's November 13, 2009, letter (Exhibit F-15).
Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Hennagin that it was a matter of following the Code, and
not a matter of how long the Puterbaughs have paid taxes or how much they have invested. She
agreed that there was a negative impact on the Yearsleys, yet the question came down to the
Council's interpretation of significant negative impact. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that
the Council should impose conditions to mitigate the impact.
She suggested revising the language of the fourth bullet on p.4 of Mr. Shepherd's letter to read
"building a home as low as possible on the property." She referenced the similar language found
in the next bullet of "as much as practicable." She spoke to finding the happy medium between
building as low as possible on the property but not too close to the cliff so as to cause erosion and
slide problems.
Councilor Olson agreed to Mayor Hoffman's suggestion of "building as low as practicable."
Councilor Johnson concurred with the other Councilors' comments. She said that she was
satisfied that the lot met the Code requirements for becoming legal. She supported including the
conditions.
Mayor Hoffman said that he also agreed with the previous comments in terms of the Code criteria,
the evidence before the Council, and the difficult position of the Council as a quasi-judicial hearings
body.
Ms. Andreades reviewed her understanding of the conditions of approval desired by the Council.
The future structure would fit within the building envelope framed by a shed roof with a maximum
height of 35 feet and sloping consistently to approximately 24 feet. The future garage would not
exceed the maximum height of approximately 13 feet. The applicant would not be allowed to use
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26
November 17, 2009
the height exception allowed by the Code. The house will be built as low as practicable on the
property.
Councilor Tierney noted that Mr. Shepherd used 12 feet for the garage height.
Mr. Powell asked clarifying questions regarding the four bullets on p.4 of Mr. Shepherd's letter.
He asked, with respect to the first bullet, whether the Council meant to suggest limiting the house
to two stories with a basement. He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the maximum height
should do the same thing, but he wanted to clarify whether the number of stories was an issue for
the Council. If not, then the first bullet was unnecessary because the Council addressed the issue
elsewhere with the height limitation. He indicated that he heard consensus that the first bullet was
unnecessary.
He noted that limiting the maximum height and allowing no height exception were clear in the next
bullet. The Council indicated that the conclusion that the result would be half a story above visual
grade was not a requirement. Mr. Powell concurred with Councilor Tierney that the 12 foot height
limit for the garage trumped the height recommended by staff.
The Council agreed that the height limitations addressed the statement about the garage structure
being slightly taller than the home. Mr. Powell noted the condition to build the home as low as
practicable on the property and into the hillside as much as practicable.
Mr. Powell asked whether building the home with a flat sloping roof with a low side to the east was
part of the condition. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that using the staff recommendation, with
the addition of the roof sloping to the east, eliminated any reason for the last bullet.
Ms. Andreades noted that all the other conditions were part of the staff report.
Councilor Johnson moved to reverse the DRC's decision and approve the application with
the conditions as outlined by the applicant on page 4 and staff on pages 12 and 13, as
modified in the Council deliberations. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. A voice
vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [6-0]
Mr. Powell announced that this was a tentative decision by the Council, which would be made final
upon adoption of findings, conclusions, and order at the December 15, 2009, hearing. He noted
for the record that the applicant agreed to an extension of the 120 -day rule to December 15 for
adoption of the final findings.
Mayor Hoffman announced that the Council would continue the Allied Waste rate increase
request to another date in the interests of time.
7.2 Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan
Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits.
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Papadopoulos noted that Tim Kraft from OTAK was present.
She discussed the realities behind surface water management, starting with the 123 million gallons
of rain that fell in Lake Oswego in a year, which, if converted to fuel, would be sufficient to fuel a
fleet of 175,000 cars for one year. She said that most of the water either soaked into the ground or
evaporated or ran off into the nearest creek, lake, or river without causing any issues, which was
the natural way that it should work.
She mentioned that the first efforts of storm water management focused around flooding and
protecting the structures built by humans that interfered with this natural process. She noted that
recently communities have come to understand that the water picked up pollutants when it hit the
ground and carried those pollutants into the water system through storm water runoff. She stated
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26
November 17, 2009
that humans have severely impaired streams through the detrimental pollutants carried into them
by storm water.
She discussed the two main aspects faced by the City: water quality and storm water
management. She indicated that the City could have a plan ranging from a 'Cadillac' program to
something moderate to something minimal. She commented that the City would never have
enough money to do the whole job. Whatever the plan, there would always be more to do. She
mentioned that the City's surface water fees covered the program costs.
She explained that staff went through a three-year master planning process to determine the
priorities and program level desired by the community, as well as researching technological
advances, current science, and environmental and regulatory issues. She described the plan
before the Council tonight as a moderate plan.
She pointed out that, since the community's fees supported the plan, it was important that the plan
reflect what people were interested in. She mentioned hearing two voices during their public
outreach effort: a minority voice of passionate and educated people who want the City to do a lot,
and a majority voice of people interested in the localized flooding issues occurring in their
neighborhoods. She indicated that staff developed a moderate plan in response to both voices.
She mentioned that staff has become aware in the last few months that there might be the
beginnings of community support to do more. She speculated that, within the next five years, the
City might have sufficient public support to supplement this plan with a watershed plan.
Mayor Hoffman summarized Ms. Papadopoulos's comment, as a watershed plan might be the
next logical step for the City to take. He speculated that it might be possible to determine the
scope and cost of such a plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Ms.
Papadopoulos clarified that it would be a logical step if there were community support. She
indicated that she could not say whether it would make the most sense to do it within the
Comprehensive Plan, although it certainly tied into the Plan.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mr. Kraft indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the difference between a watershed plan and the
Clean Streams Plan was that the Clean Streams Plan was broader, in that it took into account
regulatory programs, design standards for development, etc. He explained that a watershed plan
had a tighter focus, in that it looked at the factors in a particular watershed that caused
deterioration and sought to address those factors through specific projects in that watershed.
Mr. Kraft indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a watershed delineation would probably take into
account the entire area drained by Lost Dog Creek or by Springbrook Creek.
Councilor Hennagin referenced Audrey Mattison's letter reporting her observation of increased
erosion in the ravine next to her property on Glen Eagles Road, which might possibly be due to
development. He asked what affect climate change had on increasing rainfall. He mentioned his
own observations of seeing heavier downpours today than he saw a decade ago.
Mr. Kraft said that he could not speak to the weather and increased rainfall amounts, but he did
know that increased rainfall velocities and the amount of water getting into the creeks contributed
to erosion. Ms. Papadopoulos mentioned that the City hired a hydrologist as part of the Clean
Streams Plan work in order to answer that very question. She reported that the hydrologist did not
find a significant difference in rainfall amounts over long periods of time.
Councilor Tierney asked if the plan recommended using pervious surfaces, removing gutters from
residential units, or opening up culverts (as suggested in the Lake Corporation report). Mr. Kraft
said that the plan had a recommendation to disconnect downspouts where applicable in the city,
but not a recommendation to open up culverts. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the capital
projects section, in addressing culvert replacements, spoke of determining whether it would be
feasible to open up the culvert rather than simply replacing it.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26
November 17, 2009
Mr. Kraft confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that Section 6, Best Management Practices, discussed
these kinds of issues. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to the Mayor that staff would look at low
impact development approaches and best management practices whenever one of the listed
capital improvement projects rose to the top for financing. She commented that with the ever-
changing technology in surface water management, whatever solution they thought of today would
likely change three years from now.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.
THOSE IN SUPPORT
• Andrew Harris, 2270 Arbor Drive, West Linn
He distributed copies of his comments. He recalled that, as an employee of the City for 27 years
(1977 to 2005), he worked on preparing the original Comprehensive Plan and its policies, as well
as developing the development standards for wetlands, streams, and drainage. He mentioned his
work as project manager for 29 stream restoration projects in the City. He referenced his report,
Healthy Streams and Watershed Plan, which went into greater detail than his comments.
He expressed his appreciation for the work and effort that went into creating the Clean Stream
Plan. He indicated that, while he supported what the Plan was trying to do in addressing water
quality issues and using LIDA measures, the Plan was only a significant piece of the puzzle, and
not the whole puzzle.
He presented five paradigms that he identified in the Plan and gave suggestions for new
paradigms that would lead the City in the direction of a watershed plan. He indicated that the first
paradigm in the Plan was that the science did not support doing stream restoration. He stated that
there was an approved scientific method called the geomorphic approach to natural channel
design that has been applied throughout the country for a decade with success. He suggested a
new paradigm that acknowledged that there were ways to create effective stream restoration
projects.
He indicated that the second paradigm in the plan was that slowing run off and flow rates would
eventually lead to fixing stream erosion problems. He acknowledged that that was partially true.
He described how stream erosion destroyed the natural flood storage and flood plain protection
functions of a stream. He cited a study by Ben Johnson, PSU graduate student, on Lost Dog
Creek, in which Mr. Johnson quantified and verified that the dominant source of sediment and
phosphorous pollution in the city came from stream channel erosion, as opposed to coming from
the entire watershed.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mayor Hoffman asked if the Plan included stream restoration projects on the capital project list, or
if that type of project lay outside the purview of the plan. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the
Plan did not include those projects at this time, as staff had felt it more important to concentrate the
City's limited resources on stream inputs and eroding forces stabilization before looking into
restoration projects
Mayor Hoffman acknowledged that the City had a history of doing stream restoration projects in
the past, such as in Springbrook Park by the Hunt Club and on Lost Dog Creek.
Mr. Harris noted another paradigm in the Plan of not working on private property. He argued that
the City needed to work on private property. He indicated that there were many examples of
private property owners willing to cooperate with the City once they understood what was going on.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26
November 17, 2009
He referenced the Plan paradigm that stream restoration was too expensive. He mentioned the
studies cited in his comments that found stream restoration as the most cost effective way of
removing sediment and phosphorous of all possible measures the City could take.
Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that nowhere in the Plan did staff say that
stream restoration cost too much. Mayor Hoffman noted that the Plan did encourage stream
restoration on private property through the grant program.
Councilor Olson thanked Mr. Harris for the report he prepared for the Lake Corporation, which
she had found very helpful. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He indicated that, given the City's focus
on sustainability and the Lake Corporation concerns, he could see the Plan as the foundation for
moving to the next step.
Mr. Harris stated that his testimony supported the Plan and suggested a future direction.
Mr. Harris concurred with Councilor Tierney that the City had a history of trying to do stream
restoration in a way that incorporated both the actual stream restoration and some secondary
measures. He argued that they could not wait to take the Plan's sequential approach and do
everything in the Plan before doing the other leg of the stool, which was the in channel measures.
They needed to do the measures simultaneously.
Mayor Hoffman recalled the Springbrook Creek restoration projects next to the Hunt Club and at
Ruth Pennington Park. He summarized Councilor Tierney and Mr. Harris' comments as, while the
Clean Streams Plan was necessary, the City could not sit back with its adoption and say, "We're
done,"
Councilor Tierney expressed his concern that the Plan did not take a more comprehensive look at
the situation and did not attack a common problem in an integrated way. Ms. Papadopoulos
reiterated that what staff heard from the public did not secure sufficient financial support to do a
high-end plan. She indicated that, in being thoughtful about where to employ the funds, staff
decided that the most appropriate starting point was to work on the erosion inputs and wait until the
community was ready to support the next step. She described the next step as expensive and
having a significant impact on things.
Councilor Tierney commented that, while he appreciated that there was not a clear demarcation
between policy and administration, he thought that community support could be expressed to the
elected members of the community, who would make those decisions. He acknowledged the staff
public outreach effort and the need to establish community support, but noted that he has been
expressing the other information and opinions for some time.
• Jeff Ward, 26001 NW Hwy 47, Buxton, OR, General Manager, Lake Oswego Corporation
He thanked the Council and staff for their vigilance in addressing natural resources in Lake
Oswego. He discussed the Lake Corporation's interest in the watershed. He noted the
Corporation's long history in dealing with the sedimentation and phosphorus deposited in the lake
from the watershed. He mentioned dealing with sedimentation through dredging and the algae
blooms caused by the phosphorus through algaecide.
He indicated that more recently the Corporation has looked at the watershed to see where the
phosphorous came from. He referenced Ben Johnson's master thesis, which found that the major
source of phosphorus entering Lost Dog Creek came from stream bank erosion because the
ground levels of phosphorus in this area were so high.
He applauded the Plan and all its proposed capital projects. He concurred with Councilor Tierney
about doing a comprehensive plan. He indicated that Corporation supported the proposed
inclusion of low impact development standards in the Code, as well as taking measures to slow
down and decrease the flow into the conveyance systems.
He referenced the description in the Plan introduction of the MS4 permit as a management plan
and the Clean Streams Plan as a master plan. He argued that what they were trying to do was to
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26
November 17, 2009
accomplish what a watershed naturally accomplished, and therefore, they needed a
comprehensive view. He mentioned the Corporation's desire to see an overall vision and step-by-
step goals to accomplish that vision, which did not worry about the MS4 regulatory requirements
because the City was moving forward in accomplishing all of those requirements.
He spoke of the Corporation's support of a strong and effective public outreach program (including
some way to motivate people to disconnect downspouts), a phosphorus ban, and low impact
development as the first option in all projects, new development, and redevelopment.
THOSE IN OPPOSITION
• Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road
She indicated that her observations and comments were more an advocacy for a subject not
addressed in the Plan than in opposition to the total Plan. She said that she supported the
comments by Jonathan Snell and the paper Healthy Streams and Watersheds by Andrew Harris
(Harris Stream Services) and Martha Mitchell (Clear Water West), which provided specific
strategies and actions
She referenced her background as a volunteer partnering with the City in developing a
management plan and supporting a friends group for Springbrook Park, as well as serving on the
Clean Streams sounding board. She argued that her example of erosion was likely representative
of what was occurring unchecked in most ravines, swales, and low-lying areas throughout Lake
Oswego.
She said that the ravine bordering her property indicated that infiltration had worked in the past, in
that it had remained unchanged for 40 years. She cited the second wave of urbanization impacts
as resulting in a two -foot deep incised channel eroding at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 inches
annually. She described the change from seasonally soggy ground to a rapid flowing muddy water
stream that transported material as big as her fist down hill to Springbrook Creek, which was the
most prominent of the natural channels in Lake Oswego conveying water to the lakes and rivers
(per the City's MS4 permit).
She contended that the interdependence of this small 26 -acre watershed was relevant to the
degradation of stream function. She described it as an active demonstration of existing surface
water conditions resulting in impaired streams through stream bank erosion and phosphorous
transmission. She asked when the City intended to address impaired stream conditions, as the 10 -
year Clean Streams Plan did not address them.
She spoke in support of the community -wide programs and practices proposed by the
Sustainability and Natural Resources Advisory Boards. She expressed her hope that the City
would extend the accompanying grants to include stream restoration, similar to the City -approved
resource enhancement project underway through the efforts of the Uplands neighbors.
She stated that the Plan acknowledged but did not address impervious surfaces as the source of
increased surface water flows and flow rates. She contended that it was the City's responsibility to
regulate the flows and the citizens' responsibility to implement the regulations. She argued that to
do otherwise implied that the protection of natural resources and the improvement of water quality
were not the perceived quality of life values long ascribed to Lake Oswego residents.
• Jonathan Snell, 3250 Upper Drive, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Chair
He expressed his amazement that he opposed the surface water master plan that took three years
to produce at an early cost estimate of $400,000, given that he was an advocate for surface water
management, riparian corridors, water quality, and aquatic life. He mentioned that, as a former
member of the NRAB, he has been involved with this process since before the Plan process
began.
He stated that the City needed to do better. He contended that the limited funds available made it
imperative that they take a comprehensive, watershed approach, as opposed to doing a surface
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26
November 17, 2009
water management plan. In arguing for using a comprehensive approach to deal with channel
erosion (resulting from hydraulic alteration), which was the primary source of pollutant loading, he
used an analogy of the folly of upgrading windows to more panes if one did not have insulation in
the ceiling. He noted that Mr. Harris' report discussed this issue but the Plan did not attempt to
quantify the process.
He commented that, while he was an advocate for riparian resource management, he was also an
advocate for good fiduciary management of the surface water management fee paid by Lake
Oswego residents. He contended that, in order to manage the fee effectively, the City needed to
look at the whole picture and identify the locations of the biggest problems.
He indicated that he would like to see a `can do' attitude for ways to redo hydraulic connectivity,
slow water down, manage the riparian corridors, increase channel roughness, and restore healthy
stream functions. He held that the best evidence that the City could do that in the future was that it
has done so in the past.
He described the Plan as anti -stream restoration. He acknowledged that the Plan's different
approach had merit, in that the City needed to take action in the upper part of the watershed as
well, but he emphasized the importance of taking action in the entire watershed. He commented
that the statement in the Executive Summary stating that the community did not support a
watershed -based approach at this time sounded like a policy statement to him. He expressed his
doubt that the Council made that decision. He asked whether the Council was willing to look at the
real problem and do a searching inventory of the system.
He indicated that he perceived the Plan as shutting the door on some cost-effective measures that
the City could take. He mentioned informing the City earlier that the soil permeabilities in the
Boones Ferry and First Addition areas, where the two biggest capital improvement projects were
scheduled, were fairly good. He suggested modifying Figure 1 in the Plan to represent soil
permeability as much as the 1992 plan did.
He commented that the City doing a plan in 1968 and updating it in 1992 and 2008 told him that it
would be twenty years before this opportunity came around again. He contrasted a map from the
1992 plan that indicated the soil permeabilities with the equivalent map from the Clean Streams
Plan, which provided no such information.
He presented his specific recommendations. He asked the Council to commit to considering
hydraulic connectivity in the CIP projects and to the evaluation of alternatives that reduced
hydraulic connectivity. He contended that many of the CIP projects have increased hydraulic
connectivity, which made the water run off faster.
He asked the Council to commit to outreach and education programs, including the concept that
how fast the water left the property was a problem. He contended that people understood that it
was not a good idea to dump poison in the water, but they did not understand that using
downspouts to channel water through pipes to the edge of their property was destructive of the
resource.
He asked that staff modify Figure 4.1 to represent the soil infiltration capacities as mapped by the
Natural Resource Conservation Service. He asked the Council to commit to the evaluation of
potential continued use of UICs (underground interjection controls, or drains, sumps) prior to
abandoning the idea of their continued or expanded use. He acknowledged the existence of
regulations but argued for a systematic evaluation to inform the decision to comply with
regulations, rather than being totally controlled by regulations.
He asked the Council to commit to consideration of the role of stream channel erosion in TMDL
pollutant loading. He mentioned his meeting with staff to ask staff to use the City's existing
information to determine the current phosphorous loading levels. He said that staff told him that
they lacked sufficient information, which did not make sense to him because the City has been
doing water sampling for 17 years.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26
November 17, 2009
He pointed out that people only protected those resources that they valued, but they only valued
what they were aware of. He argued that if the people were not aware of the adverse impacts that
they created on the resource, then the resource was negatively impacted. He contended that
people were not aware that what they thought was okay to do was destructive to the resource.
He stated his belief that the values of this community would support a watershed -based approach.
He held that this community had the willingness to look at its part in contributing to the problems
(the pollutant loading and the degradation of the resource) and to modify its actions to some
degree to help address the problem. He commented that it was the role of elected officials to
make decisions regarding the community values.
He encouraged the Council to consider his specific recommendations and to decide which, if any,
staff should incorporate into the plan. He asked the Council not to approve the plan in its current
form.
THOSE NEUTRAL
• Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way
She asked for a clear and objective reason why Oswego Lake was excluded from the area of
jurisdiction of the surface water utility (p. 19). She asked whether the people in the lake basin and
lakefront property owners contributed to the utility fee for surface water management. She asked
that it be clearly stated for the record whether stream restoration projects on private property would
be voluntary or mandatory on the part of the owner.
Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the statements on p. 19 simply summarized LOC 38.24. She
did not know why the Code section excluded the lake. She stated that, as far as she knew,
everyone in Lake Oswego paid a surface water fee. She clarified that any projects in the Plan
were voluntary.
• Mark Rosenkrantz, 6329 SE 43rd Avenue, Portland, Water Resources Specialist, Lake
Oswego Corporation
He mentioned that he saw no way in the Plan to measure its success, nor any specific guidance for
staff to follow in implementing any of the Plan programs. He gave an example of the suggestion to
disconnect downspouts, which lacked a timeline for implementation. He noted another example of
no steps in the plan for how to achieve a phosphorous free fertilizer ban.
He observed that these were examples of actions to stop the water at the source, per the plan's
statement that it was more cost effective to stop pollutants at the source than to try to mitigate
them after they were in the system. He commented that infiltrating water close to its source where
possible meant better success in restoring the streams. In addition, removing phosphorous inputs
from the watershed might mean more success in removing phosphorous from the lake.
He said that he would like to see guidance in the Plan for how the community would carry out the
projects (including a timeline), as well as guidance on how to measure the Plan's success. He
questioned how they could make changes to this living document over time if they did not know
whether the programs were successful or not.
Mr. Rosenkrantz indicated to Councilor Olson that, several years ago before phosphorous -free
fertilizer became widely available, the Corporation formulated its own fertilizer and made it
available to lake property owners. He mentioned the Corporation's encouragement to the
residents to use phosphorous -free fertilizer and not to sweep lawn clippings into the lake.
Councilor Olson asked if the Lake Corporation shareholders could vote to mandate themselves
not to use phosphorous fertilizer. Mr. Ward indicated that that would be a Board decision.
• Diane Cassidy, 18280 Indian Creek Drive
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26
November 17, 2009
She asked for a more complete answer to Ms. Jones' question regarding the exclusion of the lake.
Mr. Powell stated his understanding of the question as why did the Executive Summary mention
the exclusion of Oswego Lake from some of the Plan provisions. He explained that the Code
section summarized in the Executive Summary described the surface water utility facilities owned
by the City, as opposed to describing the surface water management system, which included all
natural and manmade facilities utilized by the surface water utility to regulate the quantity and
quality of surface water.
He speculated that the Code specifically excluded the lake in its list of City -owned facilities in order
to clarify that the City, even though it owned some lakefront property, was not claiming ownership
of the lake as an interest in a water body for surface water utility purposes.
Ms. Cassidy suggested that the Council considering clarifying that item before it approved the
plan. She indicated that she wanted to make sure that all of the water in Lake Oswego, including
the lake, was covered by the Plan.
She expressed her concern that the plan might suggest disconnecting downspouts as a one size
fits all solution. She pointed out that doing so on hillside properties might cause erosion problems.
She mentioned that her lot, as the low lot in the neighborhood, would flood if her higher elevation
neighbors disconnected their downspouts that took the water out to the street, which was the only
other place for the water to go.
She spoke to the importance of applying these conditions site -by -site and neighborhood -by -
neighborhood. She mentioned that she lived in Bryant Woods behind the Waluga and Bryant
schools. She indicated that the school fields had an underlying gushy gray clay soil and a water
table that would be at the surface in a couple of weeks if this current rain continued. She stated
that the ground could not take any more water.
She said that she applauded using onsite water infiltration where practical. However, not all
properties, such as hers, were suited to that method. She spoke of properly respecting everyone's
property.
Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Olson asked for a better explanation and some examples of the City maintaining storm
water facilities on private property (p. ES -5, p. 109). Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the City
required many properties to provide storm water facilities for surface water management as a
condition of development. She mentioned that many property owners, even though they knew of
the need to maintain the facilities, did not do so. She explained that staff was looking at
developing a stronger enforcement mechanism.
Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Councilor Olson that this section referred primarily to multiple
lot facilities, such as those managed by HOAs, but it could refer to a facility on an individual lot.
Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Olson that an individual property typically had a catch basin in a
low-lying driveway to detain sediment before discharging it to a canal or a stream. He said that if
the City began implementing more low impact development, staff would likely require rain gardens.
He described how rain gardens deteriorated over time if left alone. He mentioned a need for a
regulation to insure the proper maintenance and operation of rain gardens.
He said that typically the majority of storm water treatment facilities were large swales or
vegetation retention areas owned by an HOA.
Ms. Papadopoulos indicated Councilor Tierney that, if he voted for the Plan, he would be
committing the City to pursuing the Plan recommendations and implementing them where and if
feasible, and if supported by the Council.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26
November 17, 2009
She clarified to the Councilor that the reference to three FTEs spoke of the need for additional
staff resources to carry out the volume of work in the plan. She explained that adopting the plan
adopted the overall program and approved a change in fees to support the resources needed to
accomplish the plan, in whatever form those resources took.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed that, while he had spoken to the Councilor about generic staff resources
last night, it did come back to FTEs. He gave an example of increasing street sweeping. If the City
did more street sweeping, then he needed to hire a body to come in and do that work.
Councilor Tierney stated that the FTEs were illustrative of one of the challenges that he found
with the whole plan, namely that it lacked specific guidance, as Mr. Rosenkrantz and Mr. Snell
pointed out. He indicated that he was confused about exactly this plan did in terms of
implementing on the ground the various recommendations it contained. He agreed that it also
lacked measurable outcomes, which he also found troubling.
Ms. Papadopoulos explained that part of the dilemma was that there were many
recommendations in that Plan that staff could not implement in isolation. Many of them also
required Council decisions. She gave an example of impervious surfaces. The reduction of
impervious surfaces would have a significant impact on the development codes, which the city
might or might not be ready to do.
She described the plan as more about the way that staff thought the City should go. As staff
began laying out each of the tracks in the process, the Council would be heavily involved in
deciding whether the recommendation was something that the City should do politically, financially,
or otherwise. She explained that this was common in master plans, in that they set a course, but
once they got into it, there might be different choices made. She commented that that was a depth
that staff could not reach at this point.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney's comments. She indicated that she found
the Plan a frustrating document because she would like it to be stronger with more teeth, yet she
understood the difficulty. She mentioned asking a developer friend of hers, who had asked that the
Council make the Plan as strong as possible, whether he wanted the Code to mandate the use of
pervious surfaces. He could not answer the question, indicating the difficulty involved with these
issues.
She said that, if it were practicable, she would like staff to integrate Mr. Harris' paradigms and Mr.
Snell's recommendations into the document. She spoke to the importance of moving forward and
seriously considering issues, such as pervious surfaces. She recalled that the Palisades
Neighborhood Association had recommended in its neighborhood plan that all new streets and
sidewalks use pervious surfaces, but the last Council rejected the recommendation because it was
too expensive to implement. She observed that this was a balancing act.
Councilor Hennagin indicated that, to some degree, he concurred with Councilor Tierney and
Moncrieff's comments. He expressed his concern that this expensive study might end up sitting on
a shelf, given that the Maintenance Director said that staff did not know what it could do or how far
it could go with the document. He questioned whether the City had sufficient money at this time to
do anything with it anyway.
He asked, if the objective was to take incremental steps to achieve the Plan over a long period of
time, why staff did not include everything that people said was missing. He asked why not go as
far as they could and lay out the entire objective, knowing that they would only achieve it
incrementally. He stated his concern that the plan did not take into account all the things that the
City wanted to achieve with clean streams. He commented that he was uncertain as to whether he
should vote for a partial document or whether the Council should table it for later re -consideration.
Councilor Johnson observed that the recommendations in the report kept coming back to the
issue of policy questions that needed to be answered. She suggested that the Council approve the
plan tonight as a first step and set a timeline for incorporating some of the watershed techniques.
She argued that if they wanted to help the streams in the watershed, then they needed some place
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26
November 17, 2009
from which to work. She spoke of the Plan helping the City obtain grant monies in the future. She
commented that, since this was a dynamic document anyway, the Council could look at changing it
later.
Councilor Olson thanked all the staff and the advisory and work committees that worked on the
plan. She said that the Plan helped her tremendously, and she appreciated the hours of staff and
volunteer effort that went into it.
She called out several suggestions in Mr. Harris' report for low cost actions that the City could take
now, such as installing rain gardens in the West End Building parking lot. She concurred with Mr.
Harris that private property owners could be effective stewards of streams on their properties. She
spoke of bringing private property owners into the discussion.
She commented that she had mixed feelings regarding the plan because, while she wanted to do
much of the Plan, she was greatly concerned about the three FTEs and raising fees once again.
She mentioned several of the fees that the Council has raised since she took office. She
acknowledged that this was the most modest rate increase the Council has seen, but she was tired
of raising fees.
She asked for clarification on the street sweeping reduction in Option 3 of the funding plan, due to
the loss of a part-time retired staff person. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that there was money in
the budget to hire a replacement, but it was very difficult to find someone skilled in driving these
expensive and finicky machines. She explained that she would not be surprised if the retired street
sweeper who has been working during the fall and winter seasons stopped coming in in the next
couple of years.
Ms. Papadopoulos explained to Councilor Olson that the two program managers listed in Option
5 referred to needing two bodies' worth of work, one body to manage the capital programs, and
another body to manage a more substantial education and outreach program and to administer the
two proposed grant programs. She indicated that they did not have sufficient staff to do these
tasks effectively, given the staff workload.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he heard loud and clear tonight that this Plan did not go far
enough. It did not address the stream restoration and watershed issues raised by the Lake
Corporation, Mr. Snell, and others. He acknowledged that that all took money, but he shared
Councilor Olson's concern about constantly raising fees. Still, if they agreed that it was a problem
that needed fixing, then they would have to spend time and money to do it.
He speculated that 90% of the community's streams were on private lands, which necessitated the
outreach and education program spoken of by many tonight. He mentioned also hearing loud and
clear that the Council wanted a date specific for staff to come back and talk about the concerns
raised by Mr. Snell and Ms. Mattison regarding streams.
He commented that he did not think that a public hearing was an appropriate venue to wordsmith a
$500,000 document. He agreed with having a discussion during goal setting about developing a
process to create a supplement to the Plan, a process that involved in-depth discussions with
experts and interested citizens about how to move forward from the foundation of the Plan.
Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan, and then
discussing it at goal setting.
Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that the Council had sufficiently discussed the
adoption of the fees.
Councilor Tierney mentioned that he also appreciated all the work that went into the Plan. He
noted that he expressed his concerns with the document, which started fundamentally with the
question of what was a master plan. He commented that part of the equation was how they were
spending their money, and what was the best way to be spending their money.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26
November 17, 2009
He described this master plan as a compendium of a lot of interesting things, as opposed to a
document providing policy questions and direction. He questioned whether the Plan accomplished
what he thought the Council needed to have in order to make decisions, which might be indicative
of why there was no second for the motion.
Councilor Hennagin asked if staff had a specific plan for educating the public about the issues
and advantages of appropriate actions, such as not directing downspouts into the streets. He
asked if staff would be able to move ahead if Council adopted the plan. Ms. Papadopoulos
directed the Councilor to Section 7, p. 53, where staff outlined the components of the expanded
education and outreach program.
She confirmed to the Councilor that, unless they obtained another FTE or cut back on other work
to free up other staff, they could not move forward with the expanded program. She mentioned
that the push back they got from staff when they first tried expanding the program because staff
was overwhelmed with its existing workload.
Mr. McIntyre indicated that, in the end, the public outreach and education component would be
run out of Public Affairs, which was in his office. He said that the City needed either an in-house
technical expert who could do the educating, similar to Kevin McCaleb's work with water
conservation, or it needed to hire an outside group with the credibility, background and ability to
explain these issues in layman's terms to come in and do the work.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he was not willing to spend this much taxpayer money on
the document and not at least adopt it.
Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion.
Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the resolution called for Option 5 and a 50 -
cent fee increase per month for the first year (Section 12, p. 75). She clarified that the fee increase
each year for the next three years was 7% a year.
Mayor Hoffman asked what the consequence was of not adopting the Clean Streams Plan. Mr.
McIntyre said that the consequence was that the Plan did not pass, which left the choice of staff
bringing the Plan back for future Council discussion of the issues of concern, or staff chilling the
document. He pointed out that the more time the Council and staff spent on the document, the
more expensive it became. He commented that, while that was not a reason to make a decision
one-way or the other, the fact was that staff completed this plan a year ago. He stated his strong
opinion that if the Council did not want to do it, then it should not do it, and let staff move on to
something else.
He observed that three years was a long time to discuss clean streams, even though it was an
important topic and one in which the City has invested time and money. He acknowledged the
concerns regarding its lack of specificity. He indicated that, to the extent that staff could create
specificity as they moved forward, they would do so. He commented that at some point, the
Council needed to let staff focus on other topics because the Council had a full agenda.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors
Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Johnson voting `aye.' Councilors Olson and Tierney voted `no.'
[4-2]
8. REPORTS
8.1 Personal Services Contract to Provide Program Management, Construction
Management and Permitting Services Relating to the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water
Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year 2009-10
Mr. Komarek referenced his lengthy Council report regarding this staff request to award this
contract to Brown & Caldwell in the amount of $4,419,060. He mentioned the history of the water
supply relationship between Lake Oswego and Tigard, beginning in the mid-1990s with
negotiations on a long-term water sales agreement that fell through and picking back up again in
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26
November 17, 2009
2005 with discussions that led to the August 2008 Joint Water Supply IGA between the two cities
to expand Lake Oswego's water supply system.
He indicated that this was another step in the implementation plan worked on by the staff Technical
Committee and the elected official Oversight Committee. He explained that Lake Oswego had
insufficient engineering staff resources to undertake a plan of this complexity, magnitude, and
duration. Therefore, the Technical Committee brought a recommendation to the Oversight
Committee to deliver the project using a program manager -type of delivery method.
He described the competitive bid and qualifications process that staff undertook upon the
Oversight Committee agreeing with the staff recommendation. He indicated that Brown & Caldwell
ranked number one at the end of the process. Staff then asked for fee estimates from the two top
ranked firms. He explained that the apparent significant difference in fee estimates from the two
companies was only an appearance, when analyzed upon an equivalent range of services.
He indicated that staff negotiated the final scope and fee with Brown & Caldwell, as represented in
tonight's report. He reiterated that it was for services through the end of this fiscal year, June 30,
2010. He reviewed the checks and balances included in the contract, as discussed in the report,
including annual reviews. He recommended that the Council award the contract to Brown &
Caldwell.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Tigard would pay 57% of the total fee (around
$2.5 million) with Lake Oswego's share coming in at a little over $1.8 million. Councilor Tierney
mentioned that part of the allocation included Tigard paying Lake Oswego as the program
manager for the project. Mr. Komarek confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that these allocation
percentages would continue throughout the process.
Mr. Komarek mentioned that staff would return to Council in January with a supplemental budget
request recognizing this additional expense, the additional revenue from Tigard, and the additional
overall cost for the adopted budget for this work.
Councilor Tierney mentioned that the Oversight Committee voted affirmatively on the proposal.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Technical Committee was obligated to bring
this recommendation to the Oversight Committee for its review and concurrence before bringing it
to the two City Councils. Mayor Hoffman noted that Councilors Tierney and Johnson were Lake
Oswego's representatives on the Oversight Committee.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Tigard participated in the bid assessments
with two representatives on the committee.
Councilor Tierney moved to award a personal services contract to Brown & Caldwell in the
amount of $4, 419,060.00 to provide program management, construction management, and
permitting services through FY 2009/2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A
voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." [6-0]
8.2 Allied Waste Rate Increase Request
This item was continued to another meeting.
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26
November 17, 2009
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26
November 17, 2009
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Crf '1 zeh
�a bio
t
�Pu �.
BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A SETBACK MODIFICATION PURSUANT ) LU 08-0028 -1695
TO LOC 50.16.040 TO CONSTRUCT ) David & Colleen Maslen
ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION & ORDER
NATURE OF APPLICATION
The applicants are requesting approval of the following setback modification pursuant to LOC
50.16.040 to construct additions to an existing dwelling, which is located within the 25 -foot Resource
Protection (RP) buffer area on the site:
■ An 8.5 -foot reduction in the 12.5' front yard setback along Springbrook Court to four feet
(measured to the roof eave line; the building wall is set back six feet from the property line).
The site is located at 2711 Summit Drive (Tax Lot 2400 of Tax Map 21E 08DA).
HEARINGS
The Development Review Commission held two public hearings and considered this application at its
meetings of January 21 and February 2, 2009.
The following exhibits were submitted prior to the January 21, 2009, hearing:
WRITTEN MATERIALS
F10 Letter from Joseph Schaefer (applicant's agent) dated January 2, 2009, with attachment
F 1 l Letter from Joseph Schaefer (applicant's agent) to Kirk Smith and Pamela Woods,
dated January 2, 2009
LETTERS IN SUPPORT
G104 Letter in support from Robin & Mark Woolman, dated January 2, 2009
G105 Letter in support from Robert & Sandy Kammeijier, dated December 30, 2008
G106 Letter in support from Mardan M. Afrasiabi, dated January 2, 2009
LETTERS IN OPPOSITION
G212 Letter in opposition from Kirk W. Smith and Pamela Woods, dated January 5, 2009,
with attachments
0213 Letter in opposition from Kirk W. Smith dated January 6, 2009, with attachments
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 1 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The following exhibit was received at the January 21, 2009 hearing:
GRAPHICS/PLANS
E24 Eastern elevation drawing of 2711 Summit Drive and 15847 Springbrook Lane
WRITTEN MATERIALS
F12 Letter from Joseph Schaefer (applicant's agent) dated January 21, 2009, with
attachments
LETTERS IN OPPOSITION
G214 Letter in opposition from Kirk W. Smith and Pamela Woods, dated January 19, 2009,
with attachments
The record was left open for additional written testimony until 5:00 pm on January 28, 2009. The
following material was submitted by the deadline:
WRITTEN MATERIALS
F13 Staff memo from Deputy City Attorney Evan Boone dated January 27, 2009
LETTERS IN OPPOSITION
G215 Emails from Pamela Woods, dated between January 26 and January 28, 2009
G216 Letter in opposition from Kirk W. Smith, dated January 28, 2009, with attachments
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code FLOC Chapter 501:
LOC 50.08.005 - 50.08.055
LOC 50.16.005 - 50.16.110
LOC 50.21.005
LOC 50.22.025(1)
LOC 50.22.035
LOC 50.40.005 - 50.40.035
LOC 50.44.005 - 50.44.035
LOC 50.55.005 - 50.55.025
LOC 50.58.005 - 50.58.035
LOC 50.64.005 - 50.64.035
LOC 50.77.005
R-7.5 Zone Description
Sensitive Lands Overlay District
Vision Clearance
Special Determination of Yards and Yard
Requirements
Special Street Setback
Drainage Standard for Minor Development
Flood Plain
Off -Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access
On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access
Roads
Utilities
Application for Development
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 2 of 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
B.
C.
LOC 50.77.007
LOC 50.79.015
LOC 50.79.025
LOC 50.79.040
LOC 50.80.005
LOC 50.81.005 - 50.81.020
LOC 50.84.005
LOC 50.87.005 - 50.87.025
Burden of Proof
Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments
Review Criteria for Minor Developments
Conditions of Approval
Review of Ministerial Applications
Review of Minor Development Applications
Appeal of Minor Development Decision
Compliance with Approved Permit,
Modifications
Citv of Lake Osweso Tree Chanter (LOC Chapter 55):
LOC 55.08.020
LOC 55.08.030
Tree Protection Plan Required
Tree Protection Measures Required
City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Chanter (LOC Chapter 57):
LOC 57.06.065 Maximum Shade Point Height Standard
CONCLUSION
The Development Review Commission concludes that LU 08-0028 can be made to comply with all
applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Development Review Commission incorporates the December 26, 2008, Staff Report (with all
exhibits attached thereto), and the January 2, 16 and 30, 2009, Staff Memoranda, (with all exhibits
attached thereto) as support for its decision supplemented by the further findings and conclusion set
forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter herein and the staff
report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent with the approval granted herein,
the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter.
Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission:
1. The Commission received written testimony from neighbors Kirk Smith and Pamela Wood,
raising the following issues:
• The Solar Access Code requires a flat lot and the site should be considered a flat lot
because it has a house on it. (G-205, Sec. 2.1; G-209; G-212, p. 3; G-214, p. 9)
The DRC finds that "site" under LOC 57.06.070(3) qualifying for an exemption from
Maximum Shade Point Height Standard, because the determination for an exemption must
be based on the boundaries of the lot, not the footprint of the house. See December 26,
2008, Staff Report, p. 19 and Exhibits E-2, E-18, F-12.
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 3 of 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
• LCDC Goal 13 requires land use plans "should be based on techniques and
implementation that have a material impact on light. (G-216, p. 1)
The DRC finds that Goal 13 is not a criterion under the acknowledged Community
Development Code. See LOC 50.79.025. Caldwell v. Klamath County, 45 or LUBA 548
(2003); Crowley v. City of Bandon, 41 or LUBA 87 (2001). Once a code is acknowledged,
the LCDC Goals largely are not regulatory in and of themselves.
• Clackamas County Zoning Code, Sec. 301.08 requires access to light. (G-216, p. 1)
The DRC finds that the Clackamas County Zoning Code is not applicable to review of
development permits under the Lake Oswego Community Development Code. LOC
50.03.005, 50.010; and LOC 50.79.020, .025.
• Common law (Doctrine of Ancient Lights) requires access to light. (G-216, p. 2)
The DRC finds that the development application is required based upon the criteria of the
Community Development Code. ORS 227.173(1). The DRC does not adjudicate or
enforce common law.
• Daylight basement must be included in FAR; proposed development violates FAR.
(G-205, Sec. 2.2)
The DRC finds that the basement is not a "story" under the definition of Story, and thus
does not count toward floor area under the Floor Area definition. See December 26, 2008,
Staff Report, p. 8-9.
• Vision clearance triangle not met. (G-205, Sec. 2.3)
The DRC finds that compliance with the Vision Clearance Triangle will be reviewed
pursuant to Condition of Approval D (1) (a) in the December 26, 2008, Staff Report.
• No variance is justified where the existing home can continue to be used without
variances. (G-205, Sec. 4, 4.3; G-214, p. 7)
The DRC finds that this assertion was previously addressed in the Attorney Memoranda of
Law, Exhibits F-4 and F-13.
• Approval standards for setback modification under LOC 50.16.040 must be clear
and objective. (G-205, Sec. 4.2)
• City's inconsistency in interpreting LOC 50.16.085 /50.16.040 results in taking.
(G-205, Sec. 7)
• Appropriate findings are required by federal administrative procedures act.
(G-214, p. 7)
• The Planning Commission repealed LOC 50.16.040 on November 1, 2008.
(G-214; p. 7)
The DRC finds that these assertions were appropriately addressed in the Attorney
Memorandum of Law, Exhibit F-4.
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 4 of 10
1 0 City's interpretation of LOC 50.16.085 is applied in an arbitrary and capricious
2 manner. (G-214, p. 1; G-214)
3 4 Staffs recommendation of approval is arbitrary and capricious. (G-214, p. 1)
4 • Staffs recommendation of approval is abuse of discretion. (G-214, p. 1)
5 The DRC finds that these assertions were appropriately addressed in the Attorney
6 Memorandum of Law, Exhibit F-13.
7
8 Proposed development violates current infill zoning regulations. (G-205, Sec. 6)
9 The DRC finds that to the extent it is asserted that the proposed addition does not meet the
10 infill regulations that were made a part of the zone standards, the zone standards were
11 listed as criteria and compliance is addressed in the December 26, 2008, Staff Report, p. 7-
12 10. If Smith/Wood are attempting to allege that the residence does not meet the criteria for
13 an exception to certain zone standards under the Residential Infill Design (RID) Review
14 standards of LOC 50.72, the ability to obtain an exception from the listed standards under
15 LOC 50.72 is an option for proposed development that does not meet design standards of
16 the zone, not a requirement. See December 26, 2008, Staff Report, p. 14. The DRC finds
17 that the RID standards of LOC 50.72 are not applicable to this development request as the
18 applicants applied to modify the front setback under the provisions of LOC 50.16.040. To
19 the extent Smith/Wood are alleging that other unspecified regulations under the category
20 of "infill" are not being met, there is not sufficient specificity in identifying the asserted
21 code section to be able to address the issue.
22
23 • Development is prohibited by required setbacks. (G-214, p. 5)
24 The DRC finds that the setback reductions requested by the applicants meet the criteria of
25 50.16.040.
26
27 • No construction setback is required for construction activity. (G-214, p. 4)
28 The DRC finds that the 10' construction setback from the RP buffer is a function of LOC
29 50.16.075(2) (v) (A). A portion of the new front porch will be located within the 10'
30 construction setback; all other proposed development will either be in the existing
31 footprint or outside of the RP District and construction setback. LOC 50.16.085(1)
32 permits development on the parcel of a single family home. The DRC finds that an
33 expansion of the residence is permitted under LOC 50.16.085, and is the justification for
34 reduction of the setbacks under LOC 50.16.040. Since the front setback is modified to
35 pennit construction in the construction buffer area, the DRC necessarily also finds that
36 LOC 50.16.085 permits construction in the construction buffer area.
38
40 2. Smith/Wood's testimony on January 28, 2009, asserted that the applicant had made a written
41 request for Smith/Wood to waive their rights to appeal in order to facilitate a meeting with the
42 applicant. The Commission finds that this is irrelevant, as it does not address applicable
43 criteria and Smith/Wood have not asserted that the request of interested parties to meet, or to
44 waive rights of appeal in order to meet, is a criterion.
45
46
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 5 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
3. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required front setback from 12.5 feet to 4 feet,
pursuant to LOC 50.16.040. The Commission finds that the informal code interpretation
issued in 2005 by the Community Developer Director, interpreting LOC 50.16.085 as
permitting persons on "totally encumbered lots" to be able to expand existing dwellings to the
maximum size permitted on the subject lot as if the lot were the minimum lot area is a
reasonable interpretation, and the Commission adopts the interpretation. The Commission
finds that unless a reduction of the front yard setback is granted, the applicant would have the
right to expand into the RP resource in order to expand the dwelling on the site under LOC
50.16.085. Therefore, the requested modification of the front yard setback in order to expand
the residence in an area away from the RP resource will result in greater protection of the RP
resource on the site. The Commission therefore concludes that the applicant has met the
criteria for modification of the front yard setback as requested, under LOC 50.16.040.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION of the City of Lake
Oswego that:
1. LU 08-0028 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in
Subsection 2 of this Order.
2. The conditions for LU 08-0028 are as follows:
A. Approval of LU 08-0028 shall be valid for a 3 -year period from the date of the
order granting approval, and shall be void if construction has not been completed
within that time period.
B. Within 30 Days of the Date of the Order Granting Approval of This Land Use
Action, the Applicants/Owners Shall:
Submit an 8 '`/z" x 11" reduced copy of the stamped survey of the RP.district
boundary and the 25 -foot buffer on the site as depicted in Exhibit E2, with the
following additional information:
a. Label distances and bearings of the RP boundary and RP buffer.
b. The stamped survey shall be labeled "Exhibit A" and cannot contain any
lettering smaller than 10 point font.
2. Submit a "Notice of Development Restrictions" containing the restrictions
listed below, for review and approval of staff. The final survey required in
Condition B (1), above, shall be included with the Notice of Development
Restriction as an exhibit to be recorded in the County record. The development
restriction shall include the following information:
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 6 of 10
I a. The property contains a delineated Resource Protection (RP) District
2 (stream corridor), as described on Exhibit A, and as determined and
3 documented in City of Lake Oswego Community Development Case File
4 LU 08-0028.
5
6 The future development of the RP District is subject to the City of Lake
7 Oswego RP District requirements and development standards set forth in
8 LOC 50.16.065-50.16.075, including but not limited to:
9
10 i. Tree removal within the RP District is subject to Type II Tree permit
11 requirements and is only allowed when demonstrated to be hazardous to
12 life or property by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
13 Certified Arborist, or as otherwise restricted by the City of Lake
14 Oswego Code requirements relating to removal of trees.
15
16 ii. Hand or non -motorized clearing of invasive or nuisance plant materials
17 (English Ivy, Himalayan Blackberry, Poison Oak) within the RP District
18 may be allowed, so long as native understory plants are maintained.
19
20 iii. The RP District is intended to remain in its natural state to maintain the
21 natural function and character of the resource area, which provides food
22 and shelter for native wildlife.
23
24 CONTACT THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY
25 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY
26 ACTIVITY INSIDE OR WITHIN 35 FEET OF THE RP DISTRICT.
27
28 b. The RP District boundary, RP buffer, and 10 -foot construction setback shall
29 be illustrated on the plans for all future development applications on the
30 site.
31
32 3. Submit a lot book report, title report, or similar report from a title company
33 showing that the notice of development restriction as required by Condition B
34 (2), above, will be valid and subsisting upon recording. Failure to comply with
35 the requirement of this condition will render this approval void.
36
37 C. Within 30 Days of the Recordation of the Notice of Development Restriction. the
38 Applicants/Owners Shall:
39
40 1. Submit a supplemental or final title report, or lot book report from a title
41 company showing that the Notice of Development Restriction required by
42 Condition B (2), above, is valid and subsisting.
43
44 D. Prior to Any Grading or Other Construction Activity on the Site, or the Issuance
45 of anv Buildine Permit, the Applicants/Owners Shall:
46
47 1. Submit final site and building plans that are the same or in substantial
48 conformance with Exhibits E3 and E7 -El 1, with the following additions and/or
49 modifications:
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 7 of 10
I
a. Show full compliance with the vision clearance triangle requirements of
2
LOC 50.21.005 or demonstrate that a stop sign has been installed on
3
Springbrook Court at the intersection of Summit Drive and that the
4
proposed development is outside of the vision clearance triangle as
5
determined by an engineering study using AASHTO Standards.
6
7
b. Demonstrate that any fence or vegetation that is within the vision clearance
8
triangles on the site does not extend more than 30 inches above the
9
centerline of the adjacent pavement.
10
1 l
c. Illustrate the location of a minimum 4 -foot high cyclone temporary
12
protection fencing along the RP boundary on the site.
13
14
d. Include a note stating that no construction, demolition, grading or site
15
clearing shall begin until after the protection fencing has been inspected and
16
approved by the City.
17
18
e. Illustrate the boundary of the RP District, 25 -foot buffer, and 10 -foot
19
construction setback on all site plans.
20
21
2. Submit a construction traffic management plan for review and approval by the
22
Engineering Division. The plan shall specifically address the issues of parking
23
for construction workers on Springbrook Court and adjacent streets.
24
25
3. Submit a tree protection plan for the review and approval of staff, as required
26
by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030. Include the arborist report in Exhibit F6 that
27
outlines tree protection recommendations for the 42" fir south of the dwelling
28
on the site. The report and tree protection plan shall be attached to the
29
construction documents or printed on the construction site plans, and shall
30
include:
31
32
a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum
33
six-foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts, around the drip line of
34
any tree that is 5" in diameter or greater and is within fifteen feet of the
35
construction zone or as specified by a certified arborist and staff.
36
37
b. The location of four -foot high temporary cyclone fencing secured by steel
38
posts along the RP boundary on the site.
39
40
c. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the root zones of
41
any of the trees and that no stockpiling or parking or storage of construction
42
equipment shall be allowed in the RP district.
43
44
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 8 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
d. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of
preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The
applicants and contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation
for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction.
e. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection and resource boundary
fencing, which states that inside the fencing, is a tree protection zone, not to
be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Manager
and project arborist.
4. Pay the Fire Marshal's review fee of $82.00 (Exhibit F9).
E. Prior to Final Building Inspection Approval or Occupancy of the Dwelling,
whichever is first, the Applicants/Owners Shall:
Install all mitigation plants and remove the asphalt in the RP district and RP
buffer as illustrated and/or described in Exhibits E19 and F5. The mitigation
shall be inspected and approved by staff.
F. The applicants/owners shall maintain the mitigation required by Condition E(1),
above, in accordance with the maintenance and monitoring plan (Exhibit F5) and
shall provide an annual report to the Community Development Department on
October 31" of each year for a three-year period starting from the date of
inspection and acceptance of the mitigation by staff. The report shall be
prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site conditions with
narrative and pictures.
Note:
1. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake
Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego
Community Development Code, and other applicable codes and regulations. The
applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal
laws and regulations that could Relate to the development, e.g., Americans with
Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City Staff may advise the applicant of issues
regarding state and federal laws that the City staff Member believes would be helpful to
the applicant, but any such advice or comment is not a Determination or interpretation of
federal or state law or regulation.
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 9 of 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DATED this 18th day of February, 2009.
Kryst�cx�tac�1'k, Ctair�
Deve upiiieuL eview Commission
Janice Reynolds V
Administrative Support III
ATTEST:
ORAL DECISION — February 2, 2009
AYES:
Stadnik, Heredia, Richards, Needham, Rossi and Scott
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Creighton
WRITTEN FINDINGS — February 18, 2009
AYES: Stadnik, Heredia, Needham,Rossi
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Richards, Creighton, Scott
LU 08-0028-1695
Page 10 of 10
LOCC 3/23 3Ja3Jla
Mayor Hoffman and Council Members, I'm R A Fontes, 310 2nd, Lake Oswego.
In January, Metro informed the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Citizens Advisory Committee that
streetcar is now forecast to need 18 to 22 minutes just to travel the proposed extension. So the PSU
to Lake Oswego trip will take 6 to 11 minutes longer than originally thought. That's also 6 to 11
minutes longer than the current average bus trip. In fact, rapid streetcar will be so slow, that in some
cases, a bus leaving Lake Oswego at the same time would not only beat that streetcar but would
leapfrog ahead of the one in front of it.
In -vehicle time is only half the problem. It's alignment will add 15 minutes or so round-trip from forced
transfers, longer walking distances, and less efficient connections. That, plus streetcar's inherent
slowness, will add about a half-hour to round trips after it replaces almost all Portland bus service.
Your handout has a few examples comparing trips using the current bus and those using streetcar.
How long will streetcar remain slower for most riders than what we have now? No one knows.
Numbers coming out of Metro's model are astoundingly pessimistic about bus trip times, have little
relationship to available hard data or even our own community survey, and come with little supporting
documentation. Your handout has some actual evidence. There's a 29 year old schedule showing
the slowest trip of the day taking 27 minutes from SW 5th and Oak in Portland to 1 st & A in Lake
Oswego. After adjusting for route changes, we would expect it to take about 31 minutes. It takes 35.
So, in 29 years, bus trip times have effectively increased by only 4 minutes. At that rate, it would take
over a century before trips by bus will slow to parity with those using streetcar ---more than a century!
Maybe there is some hard evidence out there which gives credence to the dire predictions about the
bus. Maybe Secretary LaHood's proposed regulatory changes broadening acceptable rationales for
transit projects will eliminate the requirement that those projects actually improve public transport.
But shouldn't we have as a minimum threshold that it not be worse?
I believe this project has juggernaut status. That's why you're not being asked to stop it, but to
mitigate the damage. We need to keep the current bus as is or as an express. We need to
indemnify Portland Streetcar and TriMet, and thereby the transit using public, from the millions of
dollars in extra operating losses that streetcar undoubtedly will incur.
Thank you.
Supplemental Materials
R A Fontes, 3/23/10 rfontes@q.com
Bus and streetcar trip comparisons:
Consider a hypothetical trip: Say that Mayor Hoffman has a 10:00 AM meeting with Mayor Adams at
Portland City Hall. With the current bus, it's across the street to the transit center in 1 1!2 minutes,
then 23 minutes on the 35 to SW 6+h & Columbia, then a four minute walk to Portland's City Hal;.
Total time: 28 1/2 minutes. With streetcar, it's a 7 minute walk to the Foothills stop, then about 32
minutes to SW 6th & Mill, them mother 7 minute walk to City Hall. Total time: 46 minutes, or 17 112
minutes longer than with bus. On the return, the bus advantage drops to 13 1/2 minutes, mostly
because of the south waterfront. Time lost on this round trip because of streetcar: 31 minutes.
An example concerning less efficient transit connections in Portland: Consider an early morning trip
to PDX. Current in -vehicle times with the first bus run of the day from the transit center and
transferring at the Rose Quarter are 28 minutes on bus and 27 minutes on MAX, for 55 minutes total.
From the terminus, the times would be about 40 minutes on streetcar and 39 minutes on MAX, for 79
minutes total. Both itineraries require a transfer to MAX Red Line with its 15 minute headway.
Therefore the 24 minute in -vehicle advantage enjoyed by bus on this trip could vary by up to plus or
minus 13 minutes for the entire trip. The problem is that even a few minutes extra time getting to the
airport might make it impossible to use transit for an early flight.
An example concerning forced transfers: Consider a trip between Marylhurst University and the
University of Portland. The 35 bus serves both institutions, taking between 54 and 76 minutes one
way depending on direction, time, and day. Streetcar will force riders to transfer twice - once in Lake
Oswego and again at PSU. A savvy rider potentially can minimize transfer time to an average of 13
minutes each way by not starting a trip any earlier than necessary. However, one who takes the first
available bus can add considerable transfer time; up to an hour for some late evening northbound
trips. Then, too, the streetcar leg itself will almost always take more time than the current bus. The
minimum time possible using streetcar will be about 68 minutes and the maximum about 2 hours 30
minutes, or almost twice as long as the slowest single -seat bus trip.
An example where the advantage can go to streetcar: When a rider can make the entire trip by
streetcar and the north end of the trip is at a location well away from the 35 bus, then trips sometimes
can be faster using streetcar. Between the Albertsons terminus and Good Samaritan hospital,
streetcar will take about 55 to 59 minutes. While it's possible for an early morning northbound trip
using bus to take under 40 minutes including transfer, an evening southbound trip could take over an
hour and a half with a bad connection and the current bus's one-hour headway.
Southbound route 36 schedule from August 30, 1981:
[Note: At that time, what is now the 35 was the 36 - Oregon City.]
The slowest trips of the day departed W 5th and Oak between 2:25 PM and 6:08 PM, taking 27
minutes to reach 1 st and A in Lake Oswego. The current slowest trip departs SW 5th and Alder at
5:15 PM, taking 35 minutes to reach the Lake Oswego transit center by Safeway. Route changes
since 1981 include the stop at Alder instead of Oak, serving the south waterfront instead of taking a
more direct route, and extending the alignment to the transit center.
v
to < x
rn m Pom�m p;Q��s xx 0, i0 �0 _o
P r_
mm 00 00
J I P I I S.W. 5th &
T U S NZ G ry OO1 (,� r ar aN0{{yy�NUWO A-�(I�NO N-•••+fTW IJ N
O N g 4 O O c iNgJW rYiNi���� aWOmP eaP�OP OOrPr PrPrP �.m�m0 PU--•r0+ P I r I 1 Oak
m=� •' N j S O� OaV V e00aa aaaPa aaaW W WNNrr NNN�r 000 m OOOV V I V 1 I dei ♦k
mm (m�
O r ¢ G i aV0{OII aVNNN NVaNO NCN.O.+w Ow mWCotAJw fUJmtOJW> mvW Wm UWiI OI Awe(
9P,26H,26W,34,
3 oa raa" p g rrr 0C,37
S B �OaaV aaePO (Py PY1{lla aaaWW WNNrr rNN-•-- OOOfpm mmPOV J I J 1 I Johns
aO�J V01a� a0aa� ��aP� $POP Sa0U0 UOfOTOT OmUUO J I N 1 1 Landing
37
f $O ooPV aaeeo OOPPP OaaaW 41NNNr rNN-- rrr
Ift & AA usww
00 3 p m VONa m0{Wil at011 iallOviNJIN tOIIN{NIIVN VNO�p ra��� OOi�O�V �O�m� mUWOU Lake�'MW
is, < 77,37
OIOa V � P I a I' -u l l OW I a I a I W I N I r I N I N 1 ... 1 0 1 m 11 5P I I "I `� I °f 14Rsadee
6"K, I I WI ul I WW I $ I N O i a .I a1. al al l ipl l WI Iw Pork
W o W I I I I
830
wNCm >
O3j� olMPI aaN II W
Lakeview
&
0� uOlI I.ItIT IOISI i-owI 1 I I I W1mIo Iklgron
gr$ _ 91
South
n$ c 3 0! 1 � I P I o I I" I oI NI �I wI NI r l V I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I Lakeview&
Ep• 3 :roN�.' I o I u 1 00 1 1 PN I N I V I VIP 1 P 1$ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I A 1 1 I I I P=InOMn
R. North
b I 1 I I �Ialb IuNI I !eI1!O 1 ...INIr IOLmI m9l1Pm MPI Marylhumt
C �
I u I O I O I mP l mmI J I m I 2nd & Tumwater
o 6& -
3 OI NI I I VI I I NI NI o I of ml sol eel m 1 ml ml mJI WWm I NI �I Oregon Ctty
s. 5 33,34,72
g 3 >S -- -- -- ----
W Y�
aVVP OPa W WNNrN
r_
mR
Or
I rOmmm JJPP(!I
OOPO $p rNN PmPaA NNNO- MeridianPork
Hospital
m_O
•O_3=
9.
OjaOV
.
C-
y
VO OOa a wNNrjV �y
_ .... ...... I .. .. .. pp..... .. ommP
MarfIn0II1 &
m 0
�;
pPPJJPu
NOVO WWN I.V N40i Oao0 www�� OOOWm Seneca
o- d
36
v
ySal
r
.v I seal a WWNrN rOmmm mJVPP
.. ...... ...... 72nd & Caman
lg�+a
0. owoao
C. OOOmO VJJOP Drtva
o
O
c
38
O. p
I 1 I
P P
N N NOpOp w 1110Nuu UUN�Na »»' Reese & so""
a I a I OOiJ1 I O OOGrr
Q
V
UUOww wWWPN Ferry
'
a I I POOL a aNNrr N-r+OmP PV:lPP Iii & A
0-0..... wcJONirnnNi Lake Oswego
36,77
a I .� I ooNua a41 N!Jr jV- omm Oo t vv I Johns
ar
l I �iPag� mallowaa mmmrnw rn l mm 1 Landing
36
.
O I V I PPOOa aNNrr NrOmGD PQ7VJ I g.W, nth ►
a J a.� uuuV3 iauSrr Puuww wr:�iJm I Salmon
�PaAW�ll�l�
T QCD Co
C
C
CD
U2 1
0 � Q
Q C7 v
nuc
Q �
O O
m �
O
CD
� ? y
p
O �
cc
cn
O
c
1:n
O
CD
LAKE OSWEW
Centennia11910-2010
1COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Street Maintenance Fee Increase
DATE: March 16, 2010
ACTION
CITY OF LAKE, OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Approve a resolution which would increase the Street Maintenance Fee revenues from $1.2 to $2.4 million
after a three phase implementation plan.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The City prioritizes making reasonable investments in streets, achieving the lowest life -cycle cost, so as to
best manage the overall costs of street maintenance. When it comes to streets, the longer the City waits to
apply treatments, the worse our streets become. If the City delays repairs, streets that may only need the
less expensive slurry sealing or patching now, will continue to deteriorate and need a more costly
rehabilitation later.
Recognizing the importance of the street system and the risk taken when regular maintenance is delayed,
the City implemented the Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) in 2004 which pays for capital improvements such
as overlays, slurry seals, chip seals, and reconstructions. The fee currently collects $1.2 million a year, 60%
of which comes from residents and 40% from businesses. Until last year, the fee has remained the same
since its inception.
On March 9, 2010, after public outreach efforts including a public hearing, the City Council discussed
adopting a phased implementation and indexing the SMF. The Council asked to see a resolution which
increased the SMF by 25% of $1.2 million in 2010, 35% of 1.2 million in 2011, and 40% of $1.2 million in
2012.
The City Council also asked to see a separate resolution on permanently indexing the fee.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The Street Maintenance Fee funds the Pavement Preservation Program. The Pavement Preservation
Program's goal is to make improvements and repairs to our roadways to prolong the life of our roads. In
addition, other financial resources are appropriated to other street programs including, but not limited to,
street sweeping, snow plowing, landscaping, signage and striping. Below is a chart of all of the revenues
that make up the Street Fund, which is the umbrella fund for all street related programs.
$6,000,000.00 — -
$5,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
v
cu $3,000,000.00
Q)
X
$2,000,000,00
$1,000,000.00
CHART 1
Street Fund Revenues
V �� ti
ti°o tioo tioo tioo tioo tioo tio^I
Fiscal Year
Federal Stimulus & Other
Intergov
Transfer from General Fund
Miscellaneous Revenues
PGE Franchise Fee
■ Street Maintenance Fee
a ODOT
■ State Motor Vehicle Fees
In reviewing the chart above, one will note that, although the State gas taxes have decreased over time, the
State gas tax revenues will increase. This year, it will increase back to the 2004 level. In fiscal year 2011-
2012, it is estimated that the City will receive roughly $400,000 more in State Motor Vehicle Fees than
what we received in 2004. While this is an expected increase, it has not been adjusted for inflation so
should not be mistaken to equate to greater purchasing power.
Page 3
Rate Impact
The net change to rate payers in the increase of the SMF is provided in Chart 2 below:
CHART 2
Proposed Change to the Street Maintenance Fee - Phased Implementation
Multi -family Unit
Single family
Commercial Group I
Commercial Group II
Commercial Group III
r.
Rate Indexing
2009
Current Inc
$2.86
$4.00
$2.45
I $5.51
I $20.58
25% of $1.2 Million
35% of $1.2 Million
40% of $1.2 Million
July 1, 2010 I
July 1, 2011 I
July 1, 2012
July 2010
Monthly I
Monthly I
Indexed
Monthly
ase*
Amount
Increase**
Amount
increase***
Amount
$0.72
$3.58
$1.00
$4.58
$1.14
$5.72
$1.00
$5.00
$1.40
$6.40
$1.60
$8.00
$0.61
$3.06
$0.86
$3.92
$0.98
$4.90
$1.38
$6.89 I
$1.93 I
$8.82
$2.20
$11.02
$5.15
$25.73 I
$7.20 I
$32.93
$8.23 I
$41.16
If the Council opts to index future SMF increases, in the past it has used (and could consider using) the
Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index (CCI) 20 -City Average. The net change to the SMF using
the CCI for 2010 can be found in Chart 3 below. On average, the index has been about 4% since the
inception of the City's Street Maintenance Fee.
CHART 3
Change to Street Maintenance Fee if Indexed
July 2010
Indexed
Current
July 2010
-•01%
Multi -family Unit
I $2.86
$3.58 I
$3.54
Single family
I $4.00
$5.00
$4.95
Commercial Group 1
I $2.45 I
$3.06 I
$3.03
Commercial Group II
I $5.51
$6.89
$6.82
Commercial Group 111
I $20.58
$25.73 I
$25.47
Page 4
Commercial Ratepayers
The formula for commercial ratepayers is somewhat complicated. Below you will find the breakdown, by
group.
1. Group I:
• Fewer than 29 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 square foot
• 209 locations within the City
• Examples: A hotel with 161,000 square feet is $788.90 bi-monthly
A tire story with 7,000 square feet is $34.30 bi-monthly
2. Group II:
• From 29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 square feet
• 204 locations within the City
• Examples: An office building with 139,449 square feet is $1536.73 bi-monthly
A Take & Bake Pizza store with 800 square feet is $8.82 bi-monthly
3. Group III:
• Greater than 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 square feet
• 48 locations within the City
• Examples: A bank with 25,360 square feet is $1,043.82 bi-monthly
A restaurant with 2,050 square feet is $84.38 bi-monthly
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Several alternatives were explored for increasing the investment into the City's street system including
• As originally presented, tripling the fee to more quickly eliminate the backlog of needed
maintenance
• Exploring the use of other funds (e.g., General Fund) to pay for needed repairs
• Implementing the entire fee increase from $1.4 to $2.4 million at one time (e.g., on July 1, 2010)
• Maintaining the fee unchanged with a nominal index to adjust for inflation
• Maintaining the fee unchanged
The three -phased approached was ultimately deemed most acceptable and would allow the City to
continue to more aggressively invest in the road system by an additional $1.2 million in 2012 based.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution implementing a three-phase increase to the
Street Maintenance Fee to ultimately raise an additional $1.2 million for street maintenance.
Further, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution indexing the Street Maintenance Fee
to keep up with inflation.
Page 5
Should the City Council opt to modify either of the recommendations above, the Council has the ability to
amend either of the attached resolutions to reflect their ultimate policy objectives.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ADJUSTING STREET
MAINTENANCE FEE RATES.
2. Resolution 10-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ANNUAL
INDEXING OF STREET MAINTENANCE FEE RATES.
Reviewed by:
City Attorney
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ADJUSTING STREET MAINTENANCE FEE
RATES.
WHEREAS, in 2004 the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2373, amending the
Lake Oswego Code to add Chapter 37 establishing a Street Maintenance Fee; and
WHEREAS, LOC 37.02.015 authorizes the City Council to adjust Street Maintenance Fee rates
from time to time by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that:
A. Adjustments in Street Maintenance Fee rates are necessary at this time to enable
the City to provide a safe, well-maintained and well-functioning street system; and
B. The proposed adjusted Street Maintenance Fee rates are equitable and are
appropriately based upon the relative usage of the City street system; and
C. It is in the public interest to implement the necessary rate increases in three
phases;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. Street Maintenance Fee rates are hereby adjusted as follows (stated in monthly
amounts):
Residential use classifications:
Single family:
$5.00, effective July 1, 2010;
$6.40, effective July 1, 2011;
$8.00, effective July 1, 2012.
Multi -family (includes each unit of a duplex, triplex, condominium,
townhouse or apartment):
$3.58 per unit, effective July 1, 2010;
$4.58 per unit, effective July 1, 2011;
$5.72 per unit, effective, July 1, 2012.
Resolution 10-19
Page 1 of 3
Non-residential use classifications:
Non-residential Group 1 (<29 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 square
feet (sq. ft.) of gross floor area (gfa)):
$3.06 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2010;
$3.92 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2011;
$4.90 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2012.
Non-residential Group II (29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000
square feet (sq. ft.) of gross floor area (gfa)):
$6.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2010;
$8.82 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2011;
$11.02 per 1,000 sq. ft of gfa, effective July 1, 2012.
Non-residential Group III (>90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 square
feet (sq. ft.) of gross floor area (gfa)):
$25.73 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2010;
$32.93 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2011;
$41.16 per 1,000 sq. ft. of gfa, effective July 1, 2012.
Section 2. The adjusted rates established in Section 1 of this Resolution shall be added to the
City's Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the
day of 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Resolution 10-19
Page 2 of 3
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS F
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-19
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION 10-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ANNUAL INDEXING OF
STREET MAINTENANCE FEE RATES.
WHEREAS, in 2004 the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2373, amending the
Lake Oswego Code to add Chapter 37 establishing a Street Maintenance Fee; and
WHEREAS, LOC 37.02.015 authorizes the City Council to adjust Street Maintenance Fee rates
from time to time by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to establish annual indexing of
Street Maintenance Fee rates in order to facilitate maintaining the condition of the City's street
system at consistent levels;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. Beginning July 1, 2010, Street Maintenance Fee rates shall be adjusted annually
according to the Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index (CCI) 20 City Average.
Section 2. The annual indexed adjustments established by this Resolution shall be added to the
City's Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the
day of 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Resolution 10-20
Page 1 of 2
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPR VED AS O F M:
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-20
Page 2 of 2
r
LAKE OSWEGO
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
EST. 1 941
ai
FORGING RELATIONSHIPS.
BUILDING COMMUNITY
March 23, 2010
Mayor Hoffman & Members of City Council
During its March 11 meeting in a vote of 6 to 3, the Lake Oswego Chamber Governmental Affairs Committee
passed a resolution regarding the proposed street maintenance fee increase, to forward to the Board of Di-
rectors through the Executive Committee. The Board ultimately provided the minimum 13 votes needed to
endorse the resolution. But as you can see the vote was far from unanimous. Here is the resolution:
The Board of Directors of the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce applauds the City's efforts to maintain
and improve our infrastructure, in particular our roads, and we understand the importance that a more
aggressive maintenance program is now needed to extend the life of our current road system. An in-
creased investment on everyone's part will be necessary in order to accomplish this.
With this understanding we will support the increase in the street maintenance fee which City Council is
considering adopting as a phase-in over three years, with 25% added in year one, 35% added in year two
and 40% added in year three, until the fee is double what it is now.
While not a part of the resolution, the Government Affairs Committee did discuss indexing for inflation so we
don't need to have this discussion again in three years or so. I offer that for your consideration.
The committee agreed from the start with City staff that the streets need to be maintained, but it was felt
that doubling the fee all at once in this current economic situation was not acceptable. This was the only one
of the array of fee increases which was not adopted in one fell swoop last fall. Because the Chamber was
effective in working with the City on this five years ago or so when the fee was initiated, and because Gov-
ernment Affairs demonstrated its concern when this round of revisions was first contemplated, the effect of
this fee on business was presented to the Chamber for our comment, and it appears our request for phase in
is now being added.
The Board has a continuing concern though, about the uses and restrictions surrounding city reserves and
other sources of city revenue which might have been useable in backing this increase down from double. It is
hoped that by working with City staff we can follow up quickly with an investigation which will result in a
deeper understanding of the sources of these dollars in the budget, so that the Chamber Board can in the
future be more watchful of other such increases, and more effective in advocating for our members about
different ways in which the city budget can be modified to their benefit.
Sincerely,
Jerry L. Wheeler, Sr. IOM
CEO
242 'B'A venue — PO Box 368 — Lake Oswego, OR 97034
(503) 636-3634 — FAX (503) 636-7427 — Toll Free: 1-866-341 LAKE
www.lake-oswego.com —email: info@lake-oswego.com
Page 1 of 1
McGarvin, Jane
From: craig stephens [craigattbi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:31 AM
To: McGarvin, Jane
Subject: Info regarding paving sustainability and durability for Councilors re fee increase
Attachments: Asphalt and Sustainability Considerations.pdf; Street Maintenance Fee Increase 3-2010.doc
Hello Jane
I know it is late but I hoped that it might be possible to get the attached information on
sustainability and durability regarding street paving in the packets of the Mayor and
the Councilors or to the City Manager's office for the discussion on increasing street
maintenance fees tonight. If it is possible and appropriate would you please pass along
this information? It is important relative to both our considerations for sustainable
approaches and to reduce the costs of street maintenance by using this information and
requiring contractors to "do the right thing" in that regard.
One attachment is an article (pdo concerning best practices for asphalt paving in
Oregon relative to "green" and "LEED Criteria" and the other is my attempt to suggest
these considerations be implemented at the RFQ stage in a doc file format.
If this information is not appropriate to the discussion or too late then no problem, I just
wanted to try to get it into the discussion somehow to avoid more coal black asphalt
street paving going forward! It is not as sustainable as it should be and it is not as
durable as it should be!
Thanks very much!
Craig Stephens
03/23/2010
Street Maintenance Fee Increase Considerations: Suggestions for "Added Value"
and "Sustainability"
As a part of the increase in street maintenance fees please consider inserting common
sense provisos to give more "bang for the buck" and to have "first choice incentives" for
contractors that consider sustainability and act accordingly for hot mix asphalt in
accordance with the Lawrence Livermore study that suggests using light color aggregate
to reduce the urban heat island effect. Also please consider synthetic coatings to prevent
early cracking of the asphalt. I think that would make the fee an easier pill to swallow for
most citizens and businesses.
Please see the attached regarding how hot mix can qualify for LEED points and how
contractors can use more sustainable and durable practices.
First suggested proviso: Require the use of lighter colored aggregate with an
appearance that is less black but more sustainable and durable. There are, surprising
perhaps, many sunny days in Oregon so reducing the thermal heating albedo of streets is
important locally and globally, as the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, has said!
Second suggested proviso: Require contractors to replace large segments of street
paving, not just over the trench, with the same durable surfacing and adequate under
surface and to seal the edges properly and be on the hook if early deterioration is seen up
to at least 5 years. As a first option the same contractor used by the City should be used
and a patch that is square and at least a lane wide should be employed.
Third suggested proviso: Allow for safe bike lanes and mark them. In future street
crossing designs ensure "bump -outs" have a bike crossing mid -way. Overcome the
notion, sometimes encountered with certain City representatives, that marking bike lanes
makes them "more unsafe", this is not true under any circumstances. Bikes can travel
behind diagonal parking, for example, and do. Marking a lane is better for visibility and
control and therefore better for bike safety, better for pedestrian safety and better for
motorized vehicle recognition. Moving forward in this century requires allowing for bike
transit. Require, as part of any paving project, fixing storm drains that have openings the
width of bike tires in the bike lanes. Allow for pedestrian and bike transit safety without
conflict between the two or with vehicular traffic. In other words, require doing it right
with regard to pedestrians and bikes mandated in each paving or resurfacing project
including especially marking and maintaining the marking with good standards followed
throughout town.
Fourth suggested proviso: Don't under -engineer or over -engineer. Abrupt and poorly
thought-out grade changes should not be allowed (and should be systematically fixed) so
that the road and sidewalk is continuous. Of course in Oregon, drainage should be
considered a prime factor in any paving project and proper drainage means the street will
last longer and cracks will not be exacerbated. As you know, some neighborhood
residents do not want to have wide, straight smoothly -paved streets that invite cut through
or high-speed traffic. Recognizing this at the planning stage not only improves
satisfaction but reduces cost. Walking and biking do need to be encouraged throughout
neighborhoods and on arterials by having safe and continuous paths. Every effort should
be made to make the transition to allow bike and pedestrian amenities in neighborhoods.
But always the requirement should be to respect the neighborhood majority wishes,
especially when the neighborhood is asking for reduced expenditures on a reasonable
basis for allowing low speed neighborhood traffic and parking.
These provisos, clearly stated in RFQs as contract requirements, could give the citizens
of Lake Oswego "more bang for the (paving) buck".
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
LEED` Facts
Clark University Lasry Center
for Bioscience
Worcester, Massachusetts
LEED for Nen Constructicc
Certrtication awarded September 25. 2007
Gold
Sustainable Sites
Water Efficiency
Energy & Atmosphere
Materials i Resources
Indoor Environmental
Duality
Innovation i Design
'Out of a possible 69 points
Asphalt Good Partner for Green Building
BEYOND ITS MARKETABILITY AS
"good for the environment," green
building is proving good for the
bottom line as well. Two recently
released studies — one by the New
Buildings Institute and another
by Costar Group — "confirm what
the green building community
has known all along: third party
certified buildings outper-
form their conventional
counterparts across a wide
variety of metrics, includ-
ing energy savings, occu-
pancy rates, sale price and
39" rental rates."
9/14
2/5
7m
7n3
11n5
315
Asphalt can contribute credits
three different areas evaluat
for LEED certificati
courtesy of the Green Building Cou
• Good Partner
for Green Building Page 2
• Bits & Pieces Page 2
• HMA Good Steward
for Sustainability Page 3
• Roads Harness Solar Energy
as Renewable Heating Fuel
Page 4
What does this mean
to you? It means if you're
not building green now,
you will be soon. Devel-
opers who didn't jump on
the bandwagon for green
building's environmental
cache will likely be lured
for its economic benefits.
in The Costar study, for
ed example, found LEED°-
on certified buildings to com-
ncil
mand rent premiums of up
to $11.24 per square foot, and
sale price premiums of as much
as $171 per square foot, com-
pared to their non-LEED peers.
To obtain LEED certification,
a project must earn a certain
number of credits for demonstra-
tion of green building design, con-
struction, and operation. In the
effort to accumulate LEED cred-
its, asphalt has shown to be the
most advantageous of all paving
materials. The latest LEED for
New Construction (LEED-NC)
checklist, for example, includes
credit opportunities in five cat-
egories, and asphalt pavement
can contribute to three of them:
Sustainable Sites, Materials and
Resources, and Innovation and
Design Process.
In the effort to
accumulate LEED
credits, asphalt has
shown to be the most
advantageous of all
paving materials
Sustainable Sites
In the Sustainable Sites category,
there are two specific areas —
Stormwater Design and Heat
Island Effect—where asphalt pave-
ments can earn credits toward a
project's overall LEED score.
Good stormwater design is
helped by porous pavements,
which have been featured in
several Centerline articles for
their ability to promote slower,
more natural infiltration rates
of stormwater. This provides two
distinct benefits: stormwater
runoff is decreased, resulting in
less erosion and reduced pollu-
tion of neighboring rivers and
streams; and, the water that fil-
ters through porous pavements
can be cleansed of several pol-
lutants, like oil, grease and salt,
as water makes its way through
the recharge bed and eventu-
ally, back into the soil. LEED-
NC offers credit for controlling
both the quantity and quality of
stormwater runoff.
Reduction of the urban heat
island effect is another opportu-
nity to leverage the advantages
of asphalt pavements. Two dif-
ferent asphalt traits contribute
to the earning of LEED credits in
this area — one is solar reflectiv-
ity and the other, again, has to do
with porous pavements.
The Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory has relat-
ed albedo (or solar reflectance
index) to pavement tempera-
ture. The index is measured as a
ratio of solar radiation reflected
by a surface to the amount that
falls incidentally on the sur-
face. By deduction, surfaces
with higher albedo, or reflectiv-
ity, would be expected to have
lower, more desirable tempera-
tures. Several materials choices
can contribute to higher solar
reflectance ratios, including use
of light-colored aggregates, syn-
thetic binders, durable surface
coatings and light-colored resin
modifiers. Pavement also attains
higher solar reflectance as its
color becomes lighter with age.
(continued on page 2)
Good Partner for Green Building —Continued
While all of these factors may
contribute to lower pavement
temperatures, ongoing research
suggests the relationship
between high solar reflectance
and lower pavement tempera-
ture may not be to the exclusion
of other influential factors.
Open -graded or porous
asphalts (described previously)
have already been identified by
the Environmental Protection
Agency as contributing to reduc-
tion of the urban heat island
effect because of their perme-
ability. Rubberized asphalts
have shown promise as well.
The town of Gilbert, Arizona, for
example, published a brochure
stating that cool pavements
could be achieved by placing a
layer of rubberized asphalt over
a concrete road surface, adding
that "rubberized pavements
have been found to be cooler at
night than adjacent concrete
surfaces, and cooler in the day
and in the night compared to
standard asphalt."
Materials and Resources
The Materials and Resources
category of available LEED
credits for new construction
include four distinct opportuni-
ties for asphalt pavement con-
tribution.
First is credit for diversion of
debris from landfills and incin-
NAPA Launches Warm -Mix Site
The National Asphalt
Pavement Association has
launched a website on warm -
mix asphalt technology at
www.warmmixasphalt.com.
The site is designed to pro -
0 CENTERLINE/SUMMER 2008
erators. This includes recycling
of onsite materials, so if the
construction site has old hot
mix asphalt installed, it can be
demolished and is 100 percent
recyclable into the new con-
struction mix. If structures on
the site will be torn down, old
shingles can also be ground into
new pavement designs.
Second, credit is awarded for
reuse of existing construction
materials. A parking lot that is
to remain onsite, for example,
might be rehabilitated by sim-
ply milling and overlaying the
surface, leaving any asphalt
remaining in place beneath the
surface to be considered "reuse
of existing materials."
Third, credits are awarded
for use of materials that contain
recycled content. This might
include fly ash, slag cement or
asphalt binder incorporated
into a new mix.
Fourth, credits may also
be earned for using materials
extracted, processed and man-
ufactured within 500 miles of
the new construction site. With
the exception of certain special
binders, most components of an
asphalt mix will easily meet this
criterion.
Innovation and Design Process
The category of Innovation and
mote understanding of warm -
mix asphalt technology as it is
researched and developed in the
U.S., and serves as a compre-
hensive resource for contractors,
researchers, agencies and others
with an interest in the concept.
Rating Category I Credit Description
LEED-NC Credit
Potential
Sustainable Sites I Storm Water Design: Quantity Control 1 1
Storm Water Design: Quality Control 1 1
Heat Island Effect: Non -Roof 1 1 for 50%
Materials and Construction Waste Management: 1 for 50%
Resources I Divert from Disposal 1 2 for 75%
Materials Reuse I 1 for 10%
2 for 20%
Recycled Content I 1 for 10%
2 for 20%
Regional Materials I. 1 for 10%
2 for 20%
Innovation and I Exceptional Performance Exceeding I 1 to 4
Design Process Expectations or Areas Not Addressed
Total Possible Points I 69
Minimum Required for Certification I 26-32
Potential Asphalt Contribution (incl. 2 credits for Innovation) I 13
Design Process is intended to
recognize performance above
LEED requirements, or per-
formance in categories not
otherwise addressed by LEED
criteria.
Warm -mix asphalt provides
several opportunities for LEED-
NC credits in this category. Its
manufacturing process requires
fewer natural resources, produc-
es fewer emissions, and facili-
tates higher recycling rates.
Fuel savings resulting from the
production alone of warm -mix
asphalt may make a case for
LEED credit in this category.
Users will find links to relevant
newspaper and magazine arti-
cles, presentations and research
reports, and information on cur-
rent developments. Learn more
at www.warmmixasphalt.com.
In Summary
Hot mix asphalt, particularly
for its ability to be produced
locally, to be designed for storm -
water infiltration, and to be
recycled in its entirety, provides
an opportunity -rich source of
LEED credits toward certifica-
tion of new construction proj-
ects. For more information on
LEED rating systems and the
green building initiative, visit
the U.S. Green Building Coun-
cil, www.usgbc.org.
Excerpted in part from "LEED Credits: 'Green'
Asphalt," courtesy of the National Asphalt
Pavement Association
The Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon,
Inc., (APAO) is dedicated to promoting the
use of asphalt concrete by developing cus-
tomer driven programs to enhance quality
and excellence in all aspects of asphalt tech-
nology. We believe that the key to growth and
prosperity in the industry is continuous qual-
ity improvement obtained through active
association membership, positive customer
relationships, education, and training.
For quality asphalt projects,
call one of our members.
Regular Members: Baker Rock Resources; Bayview
Transit Mix, Inc.; Brix Paving Co.; CEMEX USA; Central
Oregon Pavers, Inc.; Clean -Sweep Maintenance; Cope-
land Paving, Inc.; Eagle -Eisner; Egge Sand & Gravel;
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.; Granite Construction; H &
H Paving Co.; Harney Rock & Paving Co.; High Desert
Aggregate & Paving, Inc.; Hooker Creek Asphalt & Paving
LLC; Humbert Asphalt; J F Shea Construction, Inc.; K. F.
Jacobsen & Co., Inc.; Klamath Pacific Cos.; Knife River
- Central Oregon Division; Knife River - Coast Division;
Knife River - Klamath Falls Division; Knife River - Rose-
burg Division; Knife River - Southern Oregon Division;
Knife River - Western Oregon Division; Kodiak Pacific
Construction Co.; Lakeside Industries; Laskey -Clifton;
Mt. Hood Asphalt Products; North Santiam Paving Co.;
Oregon Mainline Paving, LLC; Pacific Paving, Inc.; Pio-
neer Asphalt, Inc.; Porter W. Yett Co.; Portland Road &
Driveway; Road & Driveway Co.; Rogers Asphalt Paving
Co.; Roy L. Houck Construction; S -C Paving Co.; Salem
Road & Driveway Co.; South County Asphalt, LLC; TFT
Construction; Three Rivers Paving Co. Inc.; Tidewater
Contractors, Inc.; Vancouver Paving Co.; Vic Russell
Construction; Wildish Sand & Gravel Co.
Associate Members:4R Equipment, LLC; Ad -Tek, Inc.; Albi-
na Asphalt Co.; Antigo Construction - Western Division;
Balzer Pacific Equipment Co.; Bear Cat, Inc.; BOMAG
NW; CEI Enterprises, Inc.; Caterpillar, Inc.; Columbia
Body Manufacturing Co.; Construction Equipment Co.;
DeAtley Crushing Co.; Exxon Mobil; Halton Co.; Idaho
Asphalt Supply, Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand/BLAW-KNOX; J.
Arlie Bryant, Inc.; Materials Testing Systems; McCall Oil
Co.; Paramount Petroleum; Peterson Machinery Co.;
Roadiec, Inc.; SemMaterials; U.S. Oil & Refining Co.;
Valero Marketing & Supply; Windsor Rock Products;
Wright Asphalt
Affiliate Members: AA Testing Service, Inc.; ACS Test-
ing; Anchor Insurance & Surety, Inc.; Anderson -Perry &
Assoc., Inc.; Applied Geotechnical Engineering & Con-
sulting; Associated General Contractors; Assurety North-
west Insurance; CH2M Hill, Inc.; C.M. Consulting; Carlson
Testing, Inc.; Chris Hardwick & Assoc.; College of Engi-
neering; Coral Construction Co.; David Evans & Assoc.;
Environmental Tech Svcs., Inc.; FEI Testing & Inspection;
Fred Bond Consultant; Geodesign Inc.; Geopaci is Engi-
neering; Jordan Schrader, PC; Kleinfelder, Inc.; Materials
Testing & Inspection - Ontario; Materials Testing & Inspec-
tion - Walla Walla; Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc.; North-
west Geotech, Inc.; NW Natural; OCAPA; PSI Portland;
PSI Springfield; Pacific Builder & Engineer; Pavement
Engineering, Inc.; Pavement Services, Inc.; Pinnacle
Western, Inc.; Strata, Inc.; Thermo Fluids, Inc.; Umpqua
Testing Service; Ward Insurance; Yazbeck, Cloran &
Hanson, LLC
CENTERLINE is published four times a year by:
Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon
5240 Gaffin Road SE, Salem, OR 97301
Ph (503) 363-3856 Fax (503) 363-5571
President: Jeff Schwarz
Vice President: Mike Anderson
Secretary/Treasurer: Jason White
Executive Director and Editor: Jim Huddleston
HMA Good Steward for Sustainability
STUDIES CONSISTENTLY SHOW HOT -
mix asphalt (HMA) to be a leader
in the race to shrink the "carbon
footprint" of conventional pav-
ing materials. This bodes well for
asphalt producers and contrac-
tors, not only because HMA ranks
high on traditional cost/perfor-
mance criteria, but also ranks
high on the sustainable develop-
ment scale. And decision makers
are considering sustainability
more and more when it comes to
selecting a paving material.
Brian Prowell, Ph.D.,
P.E., explains in an article that
appeared in Hot Mix Asphalt
Technology ("Carbon Footprint:
How Does HMA Stack Up," May/
June 2008) that the term "carbon
footprint" generally refers to total
greenhouse gas emissions caused
directly and indirectly by a given
process, product or event.
It is common for researchers
to use an environmental life-
cycle approach to compare the
carbon footprint of different pav-
ing materials. This method takes
into consideration the impacts of
raw materials acquisition, man-
ufacturing and transportation of
those materials, actual installa-
tion, and waste management.
Researchers Horvath and
Hendrickson, for example,
documented an input-output
assessment comparing an
11.8 -inch -thick HMA pavement
to an 8.7 -inch -thick continuously
reinforced concrete pavement
(CRCP) placed on the same sub -
grade. Both were designed to car-
ry 10 million equivalent single
axle loads. Their findings show
that production of the HMA pave-
ment required approximately
half of the energy per mile than
production of the CRCP.
Studies repeatedly
show HMA to
outperform other
pavement types when
it comes to reducing
carbon emissions
Other studies employ a life-
cycle approach recommended by
the Society for Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry and
the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This method
tracks impacts "upstream." For
example, Prowell notes, HMA
pavement would be tracked to
aggregate quarrying and asphalt
binder production, which in turn
would be tracked to the recov-
ery and transportation of crude
oil, and so forth. One study
using this method found that it
takes 36 percent more energy
to produce a Portland cement
concrete (PCC) than a compa-
rable HMA pavement. The same
method applied to Horvath and
Hendrickson's HMA and CRCP
pavement comparison showed
the energy requirement of HMA
pavements to be between 21
and 92 percent less than that of
CRCP, with the variation depen-
dent on the estimate used for the
energy required to produce the
asphalt binder.
One of the reasons asphalt
pavement performs so well on
the sustainable development
scale is that it is recyclable.
When recycled asphalt pave-
ment (RAP) is incorporated into
new HMA, the demand for vir-
gin asphalt is reduced, and the
energy that would be required to
produce the virgin asphalt is cut
in proportion. Advancements in
warm -mix asphalt technologies
also provide opportunities for
reduced energy requirements in
the production process.
While a universal standard
of comparison for different pav-
ing applications is not yet rec-
ognized, studies using different
approaches repeatedly show
HMA to outperform other pave-
ment types when it comes to
reducing carbon emissions. It's
just one more advantage of pav-
ing with asphalt. A
Excerpted in part from "Carbon Footprint: How
Does HMA Stack Up," by Brian Prowell, Ph.D.,
P.E., Hot MixAspha/tTechnology, May/June
2008
CENTERLnvE/SUMMER 2008
Asphalt Pavement
Association of Oregon
5240 Gaffin Road SE Salem, OR 97301
ADDRESS SERVICE REQLjtS i to
PRSRT STD
US POSTAGE
PAID
PORTLAND, OR
PERMIT #2580
Roads Harness Solar Energy as Renewable Heating Fuel
As PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD
face up to the realities of climate
change, "early adopters" are find-
ing vv ay o to use the sun's rays to
their advantage, and one, in par-
ticular, is using asphalt to do it.
Dutch . o... ,c ..may Ooms Aven-
horn Holding BV designed a sys-
tem to collect the solar energy
absorbed by paved asphalt sur-
faces and .. �r r ,. it for heating
buildings. A 200 -yard section of
road, for example, has been engi-
neered and constructed to heat
a 70 -unit, four-story apartment
building. Heat gathered from
another 36,000 square -foot sec-
tion is stored for heating a 160,000
square -foot industrial park. A
hangar at a Dutch air force base
is by heat collected from
its own asphalt iLAxt vv ay o.
According to an Aaa��ia��a
Press article on the concept
("New Energy Uses for Asphalt,"
Dec. 31, 2007), the Road Ener-
gy System is "one of the more
unusual ways scientists and
engineers are trying to harness
the power of the sun — the single
most plentiful, reliable, acces-
sible and inexhaustible source
of renewable energy — radiat-
ing to earth more watts in one
hour than the world can use in a
whole year."
Other renewable energy
sources are limited by their very
nature (think wind and waves, for
example), but "solar falls every-
where," according to consultant
Patrick Mazza who was quoted
in the AP article. Even cloudy
climates like that of the Nether-
lands can produce solar energy.
The Road Energy System
consists of a network of flex-
ible pipes :.1 by asphalt.
As water in the pipes is heated
beneath the surface, it is pumped
further und,�.. j.. i.i _...d where it
can maintain a fairly consis-
tent temperature of 68 degrees
Fahrenheit. Installation of the
system doubles the cost of con-
ventional asphalt construction,
but is designed to extend the life
of the pavement and reduce the
need for repaving in the future.
Building owners benefit too.
When it was discovered that
more energy was being collected
on the tarmac during the sum-
mer than could be used, addition-
al buildings were constructed
nearby, with water piped under
the flooring for heat. Though an
electric -powered heat pump was
required to further increase the
temperature, and installation
of the system was twice that
of a a,i.l„ v �:;�.L,.Lonal gas heating
system, energy demands of the
building were cut in half, result-
ing in lower heating bills and
50% less carbon emission. Over
time, those benefits add up.
With solar power providing
only .04% of global energy, there
is plenty of room for growth, and
a limitless source to fuel it. Com-
pared with other sources, "solar
comes out as the one with the
real heavy lift," Mazza said. "It's
the one we really need to get at."
Excerpted in part from "New Energy Uses for
Asphalt," Arthur Max, Associated Press, Dec.
31,2007
a CENTERLINE/SUMMER 2008 0 Copyright 2008
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Brad Stein, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-21, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum
DATE: March 17, 2010
ACTION
gI
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Adopt Resolution 10-21, approving the 2010 City of Lake Oswego Natural Hazards Plan Addendum.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
To qualify for Federal disaster mitigation funds, jurisdictions must formally adopt Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plans (NHMP). To meet this requirement, cities may create addendums to their respective
County NHMP. For this reason, the City drafted a NHMP Addendum to the Clackamas County NHMP.
The City's NHMP identifies natural hazards that may impact Lake Oswego and recommends measures to
strengthen the community's ability to withstand the natural hazards by mitigating vulnerabilities to reduce
or eliminate the risk to life and property.
Every five years, Federal guidelines require the City's NHMP be updated, submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for 'pre -approval" and then formally adopted by City Council. The
City's current NHMP was adopted by Council in July 2004. Without a federally approved and locally
adopted NHMP, the City is not eligible for Federal disaster mitigation funds.
In October 2009, the City's Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee updated the City's 2004 NHMP
Addendum to the Clackamas County NHMP. On January 13, 2010, the City's updated Addendum received
'pre -approval' from FEMA.
To receive 'formal approval' for the Addendum, the City Council must adopt the Addendum via resolution.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
City Council's adoption of the NHMP qualifies the City and private entities within the City's jurisdiction to
receive the following natural hazard mitigation grants:
o Pre -Disaster Mitigation
o Hazard Mitigation
o Flood Mitigation
The City's NHMP compliments the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal 7: Areas Subject To Natural Disasters
and Hazards. Statewide Planning Goal 7 of the Comprehensive Plan is, "To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards." The NHMP addresses the following natural hazards that could impact the
City of Lake Oswego: floods, landslides, earthquakes, severe wind and winter storms, wildfires, and
volcanic eruptions. Adoption of the 2010 NHMP Addendum supports Goal 7 of the Comprehensive Plan
and provides access to Federal mitigation grants to minimize exposure to and recovery from the adverse
affects natural hazards pose to the City.
Information regarding the NHMP will be conveyed through the City Manager's Office. The NHMP will be
available to the public via the City's Emergency Management and Fire Department websites. In addition,
hard copies of the NHMP will be distributed to City Departments for reference and additional hard copies
will be available upon request.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the 2010 Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum does not impact City policy or the City
Council's authority to adopt policies. Furthermore, the NHMP does not require City funds to draft or
maintain.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council adopt Resolution 10-21.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-21
2. 2010 City of Lake Oswego Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum (distributed separately)
3. FEMA Region X Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Crosswalk
4. Clackamas Cities FEMA Pre -Adoption Letter
Reviewed by:
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF
LAKE OSWEGO ADDENDUM TO THE CLACKAMAS COUNTY NATURAL HAZARDS
MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego is vulnerable to the human and economic costs of
natural, technological and societal disasters; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego recognizes the importance of
reducing or eliminating these vulnerabilities for the overall good and welfare of the
community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has participated in the development of the
Clackamas County Multi -Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, which has
established a comprehensive, coordinated planning process to eliminate or minimize
these vulnerabilities ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego's representatives and staff have identified natural
hazard risks and prioritized a number of proposed actions and programs needed to
mitigate the vulnerabilities of the City of Lake Oswego to the impacts of future disasters;
and
WHEREAS, these proposed projects and programs have been incorporated into the
Clackamas County Multi -Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan that has been
prepared and promulgated for consideration and implementation by the cities of
Clackamas County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
that:
Section 1. The Lake Oswego City Council hereby approves and adopts the City of
Lake Oswego Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum to the Clackamas County
Multi -Jurisdiction Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, in the form attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the 23rd day of March, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
Resolution 10-21
Page 1 of 2
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AST RM:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-21
Page 2 of 2
N
0
CD
00
3 CD (n
N j N O
7 CD � OD
J
CP
(T ZJ
j A
-0 W N
p
0 O N N N 3
r
O
r
O
a
O m m
3 3 Q��
�-
(O�
0
N. N
N
N Cn N O N
0
O
m
C[h O
7
CD
ET
`•
C4> m
� m
Co CD O N
N N N
CD
N
2
7 N
O C
7 =
C
U
C
N
7 3< O p�j 3 7
Cn m 0 0 (7
r
Q
—
D
r
N
C
C. N N
C
N
C
N
f0
Q)
7
~O
0
Q
A
7 .7-. L11
7
S
3
�. 7
O. O)
7
�: fCl
w
CO
d C O C
c
(D
<
c
2
N
(Ct N
2
V
^ 4:
= o
In f/i
Cs 0-
`G
N
(D
.�-. O_ n ,n.,. O O�
0 m 0
O
D
x CD
N
F)v 9
N 7
S
7
Q ��
N j m
p�
d
N
N
N
rn 7 7
7
O
Q
CD �- Q�
C.
/�
YJ
N
CD N Q
G v
O
7 �m
W
m
C)
5. m d
m
n
N
� m
O
S
m
(D (Cn 3 m m
-a 7* (D (n
7
D
D
(D Q Q
_
-- @
c3—
w
Q .^N. Q
2iZz
cr
N
o
N
N
_° _°
0
0
o 0 °' 7 70
< �`�
O
r
v
�0
__
rn
O
>
DD
D
m Q��
m� m v o
Z
r
v
w a n
O
00
Do
'a
n
0'-1
c
m m
y I
3
CD CD
y
Z
N
N
d
o'
3
a
(D _.
O a (ZD
CD CD
r
D
O
y
v
T CD
CD 7
to
=
N cc c0
O
n c0'i
W
W
fn CD -a m 3 CD
Z
<
N 3
j
Co
O
c0'1
O
O
N
o
O
g
O
x
O—
M
(D
u/
D
���
CD
o
im2 �
y
o.
� rn
CD0��.�N?
3�03@
m
G
0min
aG)w
j m
�
mv0
�.
NCD <
�
N �
N
o
�
� m Gm D 3 Dcn
m
O
O
7
N
N m
N
0
Q7
lj1 n 3 (D (D 7
O
Z
zr
CD
CD
^'
r
�' -_
W
b�
v
c m v �� m o
(n �Q
y
0v
CD
0CD (D 03(D
�
C
0 CD
(D
w
w
< 0 CD (D
Z
'�
r
m03
7mOa
D
0c0
z
CD v
°
�
Z m m a m W
06(D
m
z
z x
m
fD�m v'
a6 o
m
m_0
3 Q� v
C: Q
C
(D 7-
*_0
y N n 0 ' 0
N
3 (� 5 0 3 N
C
T- Q
C
m v
o(n m� m =
m 0 ccn
x z
z
z x
x
x
x W
x
to x
Z
m
m e m (o 3 m
D
n
(D
D
D
D
3mQmwc
,i1
in n
CD G (n 0 7
(D 3 0 o
O
CL
» � (aCD m
Cl)
(n
_
(D S 0
N
O
y
D
r
O
w
y y G
O
O N Oo
N J N CA CDj CT N A
W
m n
m
m m a
n CD
m 0
oO' ^ o'
b' o> 3 m m
"
O
N Z Z
D
(n
(n (n o
>>
0
3
N m
c0i
0
CD
CD CD
3 O A �.
W 3 n W O
2
U) (D Z (D
(n
a
A
C� T_
m m
�.
m
(n
.�
-'
G m fn
K C. �
D
CD
a
CCD CCD N
m
CO> ^. —cc
y
G� (n� _:.7.. 2 �: O'
`-' n O 7
N
a
m
(D
(D V+ M O (n
a
07 m
0
0v307 m
co
rn
m CD
3
3 3
fi
m� m(D
c
o 7 3 m 7a
7n
�(0
(� 3 0 m
cn 0 �
O
Z
CD
0
> >
<
O
�_ m
n>>
m o-0
>
m
0
O
.AF (m
.. (D ``
zT
3 N m
CD
r
D
CD
m
3
c3' �
(D
rn
m�N y
7
O
3 S G o
m
CD
Z
r
7
H
(D0L
fD 77
N !n
O O O
7
O
N
CD
CDO
6 = ::E
in
Z
7
n O
m
N
C�
r
Z
cb�
fl.
=7
n
N N
cps
O
7 N (O
CD
3 3 O
C
w
(n
W
rn
v
0 in
D
n
D D
-v r
v
m
D"
0»
w
c CD v n
5 7
O
(n
=
v
0
=
cn m & a (D
O 3
O D
v
v
10 c �.
<
m
<
m e
IT 0 3
v y
v cn
7 3 m 3 CD
z
z
z
o a(D
o 0
D
CD �.
Om
-0 3
c (D mm
-n
T
CD m a 3
m
q z
z
z z
a -0 D
9
0 0
z
D
y
D D
x
x x
(n
x x x x
x
(n
3
c
D
3 3
(D
X
o
m
G)
(D
—
O
z
X
\0
0
/
§
22
�
?
/ ° ��0
n 73�
\
#
M
I >
CD
R
.. �
\
�m
/
0 /k
\I
0
/
o
»
/
7
m
¢
t
/ 0 k
=
9
'
°
m
m
o
o
ƒ
..
.,
0
m
m
n
o
=
Q
f
r-4.
°
�
T
..
;
/
=®
®
0
-n
m
CD
11
Z
®
Crl.D
D
k
O
;u
>
o
z
_
D
_
�
/
CD
¢>
/
/
CL
x
z
.2
.
.2
m
«
32—
+
m
2
c
(D
_
0 m
m
G ƒ(D
\
$
2
\ ..
ƒ Q o
m
co
2
a'--
A
0
>
f
=
m3
E
u
2
a
2 q
n
�
/
/
\
j
® %
o/
m
O
n
=
2
&
§ 2
Cl)
k
>
Q
m
D < 3'
r-
-0 =3
X
§ /
.. >
Q-
�
E
>
q
/
2
0 �
�
w
� O
O
�O
\ K
w
7
Ee
/
�7
ƒ
CL
7
/o
w
o�
X
&
0
2 2
�
� 0
2$
>
E
m
0 5
■
>
@
0
m
.
.
_
.
0
z
x
C-
c
r
N
0
0
co
C:
D
X
0
O
m
v r
CL v
n�
(D CD
C O
(D
3 CD
(n
0 CD
(D
O
7
I<
'E'�
y
a
O�
(D
a
CD
(n
CD
C
(D
n
x x
m
D m z � w
m (D (D
a b =
Qa E
CDo CD t3D c
a 3 �.
v f (o� a
o
a = (D O
D C Q� d
CCD
DL b`
S a M 7
D
to
CD �.
0
�a CD CD C)
C O O
CD b -o
�v
J 0
Cl)
m
CD v
Q
3 (Q
c�
a - O ; v
CD n
X 7
�
CWZ C) = CD
n {Z
� 0
p S N
mO fD a
0 3
O cr
C < Cl)
c C) -M v
0
no CD a
y
CL
� r �
o CD O v
�O3a c v
CD `°
(a rt b
O N O
a b
v
a �
(U y
Q O
Z3
C7 v
O l/l
C CD
7 v
� n
CL
(D
3 4
CD �.
CD
o'
m zj'
Z) CD
n Cl)
b
v
Z
O (n �.
n
O m
;o C-
X m m
-i
N
c
ic
D
cn
n
O
m
0 w o
CL. 0
C C O (/ (D
na a m n u
a- o C- 0 o CD
o = sE
CD (D
CD
w n d N
m a
=r 0 * a "
a cO O y=
u)3 olc(Da
CD a
-o v a N a. M
5CL
Q (D S DJ
�.(ao_c
N��a
QO J O J
o v CD CDD
cn
J O C S
0 �' (D
O w
E (o a- a
0 o (D
� O
Ln
CD
3
(D =
3 �.
(o�
N
0
.a
O�
IC,
0
3
a.
o'
a
m
cn --qO--1
CD o
(D a• g �,
N (D (D N.
Q O v
o
a v
CD a-
n CL
o
o �
n
3
� O
ca
1l S
m (D
i�: 0
D v
<
< N
FD v
C7
O
c
7
`G
S
v
0
r
v
(D
X x x
X m m'
O
v
7
X
F
_
v (n O
ON
CDy.
Q C.) m
c
a O7
c.
C
N .+
Q
O
O
O
ZD
cn --qO--1
CD o
(D a• g �,
N (D (D N.
Q O v
o
a v
CD a-
n CL
o
o �
n
3
� O
ca
1l S
m (D
i�: 0
D v
<
< N
FD v
C7
O
c
7
`G
S
v
0
r
v
(D
X x x
X m m'
z zv_'or
X
N O
CIL
O n
a O :3
v > —
a O S
CD (D
cn
c
D
c
n
O
X
m
m00
O
z z z m m
D D D M
(D m
C')
G Q m
o o
CZ CD -a c
o cn
m
c co, .° to
CD o s
'� CD
v� o
bo n m
O Gi
v y O
<
o CD
o �
m v to
b
O N O
(D N G
m a �<
c °
�b
� v
;Z3
y
C al
O �
3 �
o
(D 3
Z3
Cl) o'
O
O m
c ?
n• CD
v
O
zr
a)
Q)
a
(D
(D
O
O
v
N
Q
b°
crm
4
(D
0
(D
a -
O
CL0
(D
N —
:E G)
X
m
m
m
m
D
m
G)
O
z
X
m
F
ON
new CD
r='
Q
CD
o
CD
a
o
°'
CL
(a
O
O
C
7(D
3
y
C
�
6
0
O
CL
�
v
0
O
a
0
a
3
0-
N
cn
0
°
c
o'
�
a
a
d
c.
z zv_'or
X
N O
CIL
O n
a O :3
v > —
a O S
CD (D
cn
c
D
c
n
O
X
m
m00
O
z z z m m
D D D M
(D m
C')
G Q m
o o
CZ CD -a c
o cn
m
c co, .° to
CD o s
'� CD
v� o
bo n m
O Gi
v y O
<
o CD
o �
m v to
b
O N O
(D N G
m a �<
c °
�b
� v
;Z3
y
C al
O �
3 �
o
(D 3
Z3
Cl) o'
O
O m
c ?
n• CD
v
O
zr
a)
Q)
a
(D
(D
O
O
v
N
Q
b°
crm
4
(D
0
(D
a -
O
CL0
(D
N —
:E G)
X
m
m
m
m
D
m
G)
O
z
X
A
CD
0<
--oFDo.
:E
C') CD
CD ,
c n
OL 3
o 3
Q CD
(D 3y
< y
(D
O
0
Q)
CL
Q
CD
3
Q
C
;..
Cl -
(D
cn
0
Q
(D
C2
Z
x (n
CD O
V
CD
CD
a
O
(i
CD
co
CIOm
Q
0
CD
CCD
a°
0
CD
a
v
n
C
4
O`
O
ZE
cov
a
m
a
CD
Q
CD
CD °' a a
C(D
Q N
CD o
�aoo�
o cD (D
vCO -.0 '
(fin as �
C) a o
CD z' �) Q
a) CD
D a Q
�
' c CD
cl)
CD _0 w O �
X O O O
Cl) �' n cD
0vaoC)
QD Z3 o
(
a _� �Q3
O CD 1
P) v�Q
Q o
Q O - (D
Q Q
(DZ�
O Iy O CO O
O y C,) n
�-
CL
°' o(`(DD0
CD z
0 CL
Q
N
C) Zr
o CCD (D
v�Zay
"C3 O
N LUy CD
O � v
`D c
Q' v
cn
Q CD
CSD (0 (ten
a
CD s
CD
Vim' a
ZCl) v
:z- Z3
O v (4
Ca
C6 o
(n CDo
v 0 m
m co
Q v Cl'
s_ y
S
O �
o c
Q
m
'A D
o Z
0 Z
M
3 N
O
= `tj
CD O
CN
5a
3 �
3 •.
7 �
to zs
O
0 ZZ
y �
C)
c
Q
0
3
r
tv
(D
O
cn
(D
CO
0
r
r
O
n
D
r
2
D
N
D
X
v
O
D
O
Z
v
r
D
Z
M
m
m
n
X
O
cn
Ch
C
D
r
X
m
m
D
Z1
m
O
O
z
M
D
n -
�
om
0'o�
s
C-
-n
m
p
c)
a)D
m_
r
ocD0
CD0
m
m
-<
aawo
000
0 ?o
o o
00 0CD 0
o CD N
CD
<n Cp
v 0
O
C
@ (D
�. O
Q CD (n
K
3
m <.m
v v CD
a- Zrm
g� o CD
Qo Q CD CD
F
CD
N
O 3 O C
CCD �-0
3= -0
O_j
v 0 3
CD
CD .Oc.. < 3
-C CD M
5' (n N 3 3 6 -O
?SCD
C
N
N
�-3
0 JW O N
O
m
(n N
J 0 N (D
-'M.
a O
3 O
%
3 (D n O
v ao
CD <.
N
OD
=3 0-
��cn
v o o-
m ��
°avm
0 x 0-r
o y.
(n o
O"
W
O -i ill
.
�
nvo
mm
-D�a
33 O.
O
n N =0$
0
:3 n00.n-0a
.0
C, m<.�0<-0Dv
ons
�3
CND 00
N
O CD
.J
v
(D v O O N a
N
wa C
0
0 0 y 'a
�� Q�
� CD 3 0 j 'B
N 3
0 d `<
O
y
vm
�, CCD n
omo
ai CD N j
n.
OL Q v
m<
�Q0
�z
A
Dw
.3-.
J x
w (Q
.J O-
�'O
o-
QOc3cn
3 N -O �' 3 CD
0<
��o
-(D
CD0_0
o-
cn (D- N'CD
CL C)
3
CD y (n
cn
d Q. N
CD --0
N O N O u)
0 O(D
O
N 3 (D
CD
v CD
Q Cr 7'
N�
0 3 zr 0 J� C
(D
o a
3 <_.
cn
v_j CD
y. 3 0 "J O O S a o
o v, o 3
3(n
v
� 3
o
O :E
W 3 0
CD '0
o
O 'p 3.
5- v
3 = o : O
3
O
-� (D
C O
.
(D (n 0
(D 0 0
CD = r.
-p 3
CDD N O
d 3
Q
(D ;1
O
W -1. 70
2
r. < 3'
2 'O 0
3
(p
N
-(n
Q�
m w v
07
m
CL ?�
o
a
a
-a -0
v -V r
A
W
O
O
W W
CD 3 0)
o)
N
D
D
m m 0
CoD
W
-O
-0
_0
_0
3 3
Q
0
CD
CD
a
CD
'n-. .
-0 O 3
3
7
3
W O -
22d
O 0 3'
X
x
X'
CD (D
A
CD
0<
--oFDo.
:E
C') CD
CD ,
c n
OL 3
o 3
Q CD
(D 3y
< y
(D
O
0
Q)
CL
Q
CD
3
Q
C
;..
Cl -
(D
cn
0
Q
(D
C2
Z
x (n
CD O
V
CD
CD
a
O
(i
CD
co
CIOm
Q
0
CD
CCD
a°
0
CD
a
v
n
C
4
O`
O
ZE
cov
a
m
a
CD
Q
CD
CD °' a a
C(D
Q N
CD o
�aoo�
o cD (D
vCO -.0 '
(fin as �
C) a o
CD z' �) Q
a) CD
D a Q
�
' c CD
cl)
CD _0 w O �
X O O O
Cl) �' n cD
0vaoC)
QD Z3 o
(
a _� �Q3
O CD 1
P) v�Q
Q o
Q O - (D
Q Q
(DZ�
O Iy O CO O
O y C,) n
�-
CL
°' o(`(DD0
CD z
0 CL
Q
N
C) Zr
o CCD (D
v�Zay
"C3 O
N LUy CD
O � v
`D c
Q' v
cn
Q CD
CSD (0 (ten
a
CD s
CD
Vim' a
ZCl) v
:z- Z3
O v (4
Ca
C6 o
(n CDo
v 0 m
m co
Q v Cl'
s_ y
S
O �
o c
Q
m
'A D
o Z
0 Z
M
3 N
O
= `tj
CD O
CN
5a
3 �
3 •.
7 �
to zs
O
0 ZZ
y �
C)
c
Q
0
3
r
tv
(D
O
cn
(D
CO
0
r
r
O
n
D
r
2
D
N
D
X
v
O
D
O
Z
v
r
D
Z
M
m
m
n
X
O
cn
Ch
C
D
r
X
m
m
D
Z1
m
O
O
z
M
D
n -
�
om
0'o�
s
m
(D
<
o �•(D
6
3 m
ocD0
CD0
m -v
v
3
`<
�.7 3
N N
Q.
O
O o-
<n Cp
�, (D N
O
C
3 y C
O C 3
CD a
3
O
c
a 3<
CL
o
r
CD
3
F
CD
3.
v n
�o
0
(D W
(n
C
0
w
CD �3-O
Q0
O
m
03 o
N Q
3
O
_
CD <.
N
`G
(OD
V)
CD
a
N
(o a
o
o y.
(n o
O"
S
O -i ill
CD
CD
O
n N =0$
0
CD
ons
�3
o
0 < 0
3
c
3
-0
C (D
NO
3
CD
N 3
0 d `<
O
O CD
N
C)
COD
-
CD
�Q0
�z
A
Dw
3
CD
<
0<
CL
z Q
cn
(D
C
N
0 O(D
O
-0 Zr
07
3
CD
(00
(D
CD
wv�
3(n
m
v
xv
3
Cm
N (�DCA
3
(D
A
CD
0<
--oFDo.
:E
C') CD
CD ,
c n
OL 3
o 3
Q CD
(D 3y
< y
(D
O
0
Q)
CL
Q
CD
3
Q
C
;..
Cl -
(D
cn
0
Q
(D
C2
Z
x (n
CD O
V
CD
CD
a
O
(i
CD
co
CIOm
Q
0
CD
CCD
a°
0
CD
a
v
n
C
4
O`
O
ZE
cov
a
m
a
CD
Q
CD
CD °' a a
C(D
Q N
CD o
�aoo�
o cD (D
vCO -.0 '
(fin as �
C) a o
CD z' �) Q
a) CD
D a Q
�
' c CD
cl)
CD _0 w O �
X O O O
Cl) �' n cD
0vaoC)
QD Z3 o
(
a _� �Q3
O CD 1
P) v�Q
Q o
Q O - (D
Q Q
(DZ�
O Iy O CO O
O y C,) n
�-
CL
°' o(`(DD0
CD z
0 CL
Q
N
C) Zr
o CCD (D
v�Zay
"C3 O
N LUy CD
O � v
`D c
Q' v
cn
Q CD
CSD (0 (ten
a
CD s
CD
Vim' a
ZCl) v
:z- Z3
O v (4
Ca
C6 o
(n CDo
v 0 m
m co
Q v Cl'
s_ y
S
O �
o c
Q
m
'A D
o Z
0 Z
M
3 N
O
= `tj
CD O
CN
5a
3 �
3 •.
7 �
to zs
O
0 ZZ
y �
C)
c
Q
0
3
r
tv
(D
O
cn
(D
CO
0
r
r
O
n
D
r
2
D
N
D
X
v
O
D
O
Z
v
r
D
Z
M
m
m
n
X
O
cn
Ch
C
D
r
X
m
m
D
Z1
m
O
O
z
M
r
o
C)
oo
p
m
rn
m
a+
o
O
r^
p
c o p
pv(COD
0�
(D
�
CD mo
CD
o
m 0
op
.CD 0
CD
D
Da
�,
A
O n
m
Cn
_
(Dco
l �G f
3
to
(n
M
D -v
rCD
(D
O
cn
cn
O j
0
-o n
CD
_0 O.. CD
CL o -c
CD CD
�.
(D
—I
(Q
t
O' 0 CD
o m
CD
3'
(Q
c (
G a• K
o
D
CD
cn.
"`'oma
o
Qo _
0 0
(D
ay v
CD CnCD
m y
v y
a N�
O
N
O
N
n Z
O -�
D
CD
00
CD n
O. n C
w o
C) <
-o < 0
- CD CD
cn
O CD
m` -►
Q
N
-►
m
d
r
v
c Q
a
�. w
CD � CO
Cq -•
c C
-�
(v
N (D (D
3 (D
'J
C)
S �.
y Q
CA
O
(D
7 7 3
•J n CD
N O
N
O CD
:
-o
-O (D CD
M
C Q
=
Q
T
QO
-
o
- CL
N
70
naaO
N
-
06
tvv
o
CD N
Q p.--.
N=
Q
Q O
y
ti �-
CD
D
LU CS
-
N O
N
C1 S `�
CD ?
CD
�'
(D
�'
p
(O
n
3 •G
Ccn j
N
ill
O �
�.
SSU C
Vii. ~
O
-
zr
N o
C1
w (D
J O
CD
O
Z
O
D
O<
-«D
Q
v
N CD
(D N
N
Q C
p'
(x•
- N
3 —.
lq
Q
Vl
CD
CO
p� CD
(D c
CD
fU O
Co
(D
S rn
cn
a, S'
ZT
r
(z (D
O- <
o
CD
CD (D
-
° �'
m
�
z ~
D
CD CD
:E
Q :
Q fD
(D
•o•
CD
Z
cn
o
m0
�-
O_
S
CD
< y
y
Z3,
b
m
° 2
o
° (�
cn z
p
—
m
(a)
A
Cam
A
cm
A
coy
A73
w_�
n
'(3
—0
�
n'
(o
O
(u O
~
X
3
C)
_0O
v O
N
CD
W
x ^!
N CD O
N
f)
O_��
:3Q)
C')
0 .n»0
(n
O
-003
(D
03
Q
(�D O
ti
((DD W
Cn
1
Cp
O' S
Cl)
v a'
It
a'
NZY
o
m rn
o
b
CD
(D D
CD
-ti
O
=
X
o
(D
ZZ CD
o c
N
N
CD
rp Q
CS
°'
to
CD
v
N
� :
<
n=7
`�
A `�'
o
o
o
?
N
sv
O
Q N
i.a
(n
(D
a
m co
G
(D
to
0
v
�'
C.)
A
N
tv
0
(D
OD
3
°
C Q
CDN
O
°
(o
c
C�
CD
cn
O
N
N
O
N
CD
CL
y
C°7• X
pNj CD
y
;n
<
N
n
N
��°
�. •�-.
'13 CD
°
O_
`<
O
O d
Sli
O
CD
p N
fv
Cn
N
v
(D
ill
aNi
O_
(n
U)0)
CD
C
ill
R
0
Cn
�.
N
a
zr
C Q)
n
`..,. �.
C
zT
CSD
Cl)
°b
N
Q
N
N ZI
v Z)
L1
°
_a
m
a
a)
CD
/;o
Cl)N CD
N
Q
'G
a,
a
a
a
m a
I:z (n
(D
(n
CD
CD
cn
0
CD
O
N
=�
in °'
p
CD
p m
CD
a ()
0
b
m
OL
Iv
m
p
co
O A
-n
Z)
Q
b
m
�
ic
—
o
o
D
�
m
� z
Z
Z
m
n
—
— O
O
–
A
X
o
O
x
x
x
x
x
U) "'
x
x
cn m
z
N
x
C-
z
z
a)
D
m
r
a5.go
Ca. 5.CDpm
n
O
cD -" o
N 3 ro
cD =:t,3
w 3 m
u,
+i mr+
7
z
or
ro� o s
cn
aro_ CD
aC CD
D
D
C
O
N
N CDCD
NN
N CD ro
N (D
CD
N -o O
a � CD
N o
aD ro
..
N Q- W C
N CL N=
=av
Cl-
=aN
J
J
C: d
c Q
v 3 -0
63-o
n, N {y
n N
_ CDD
ro a
ro'Na
ro
v O CD
o_^ ro
X
C
0
Oro — Q
N CS
ro
N
_
-� (DCD
O
o_cc
<
a(_
a ro
C CD
S
CD
S
(D(D_O 6
cQ -
ro �.
m
z
D
a lzl,) Tr
N O 0
X 3 .�+
co D �
0 3
S
D O CD
� ro
S <
Ni
FL ro
o vi
0
o
—3
N 3
ro
a �
O y
N
ro
CD
N
(D
a1ro
�I
CD
a
v = N
v CO CD
n N
� y
C',
(.
(0) <
o N �
o _
ro
Q` tu
CD ` ..
CD
3 " 7
y
Q CD IS
z- a 3
N v cQ
N y Cn
v O 0
(D Z C
N Q ID
(QD N
C)
CD
c
CD
N
a
3
y
0
m
a
m
N
Q
0
CZ
a
CD
O
X
co
z
Q
C
m
a
c
_Q
y
C
n
c
D
Co
z
Q
D
CD o
o CD
� o �
CD ro
w S =)
o ro ro
CD m o
CL cn C
7 � d
ro 7 a
a�
ro 3--0
(D N
ro �
(-4"DN a
ao N
NCS
D ro
E- ;-Z <
mcDCD
N O
J N
(n
C
D
cn
n
O
m
m
ro
m
a N yr
: y O
W O O A
(A CDN
X .+
N m o
O 0 7
L
o
ro O ro
--j I ;o
= CDD <
2.
=r'(D
cn V)
c 7
m
3
< `D
CD
O N
N
O
CD
ro
a
CD
N
co
D
N
U)
ro
cn
7
C
3
ro
m
iT
D
CL
N
CA
3
cn
.Z)
lD
ID
CD
r
0
N
O
ro
cD
N
cn
C i
9 1
n
O
X
m
Q
ro pro �
r =3
S S N
N ro N
N =3 N a
::iro�Qro
O � - J n
o
-a
gam;
•D .6 O
°1 0
0 'o ro
J N cn
a 0-
0- 0
ro O
w
N
S <
CD
' <D
� <D
N v
ro s
o
ca>
A
D m O �o v
CD ro
0 3 ? c a,
ro CD cn
co (D N
�3 0
CD. CD
=3 o
CD
o N a
o �. o
N CD
co ` >s
a a• � K
Lr
o
(D
c CD
CD CD
O (D y
CD
CD
C/)
— O
CD co
v �-
ti =
zzz (A
c �
dd j �o �3
O W n Cl)
l(D7 y C
!xW = O CCD
N CD O
jQ�3 CD`,
O o N Q
N O .+ n m
U N �.
N a
N
o Q 5
CD * � m
CD
< N Q
c
0 �.
ro 3 O o.
a 3 g v�
ro CD <
OCD
N p
3 v
(D a
n �
O � O
ro
O
S N
N N
N N
N Q
Q �
C CLm
Q a,
(DC)
N
ro �
CD Q
a
a
N
v
z
z
n
O
rn
z
z
X
rn
cn
x
(1)
D
D
v = N
v CO CD
n N
� y
C',
(.
(0) <
o N �
o _
ro
Q` tu
CD ` ..
CD
3 " 7
y
Q CD IS
z- a 3
N v cQ
N y Cn
v O 0
(D Z C
N Q ID
(QD N
C)
CD
c
CD
N
a
3
y
0
m
a
m
N
Q
0
CZ
a
CD
O
X
co
z
Q
C
m
a
c
_Q
y
C
n
c
D
Co
z
Q
D
CD o
o CD
� o �
CD ro
w S =)
o ro ro
CD m o
CL cn C
7 � d
ro 7 a
a�
ro 3--0
(D N
ro �
(-4"DN a
ao N
NCS
D ro
E- ;-Z <
mcDCD
N O
J N
(n
C
D
cn
n
O
m
m
ro
m
a N yr
: y O
W O O A
(A CDN
X .+
N m o
O 0 7
L
o
ro O ro
--j I ;o
= CDD <
2.
=r'(D
cn V)
c 7
m
3
< `D
CD
O N
N
O
CD
ro
a
CD
N
co
D
N
U)
ro
cn
7
C
3
ro
m
iT
D
CL
N
CA
3
cn
.Z)
lD
ID
CD
r
0
N
O
ro
cD
N
cn
C i
9 1
n
O
X
m
Q
ro pro �
r =3
S S N
N ro N
N =3 N a
::iro�Qro
O � - J n
o
-a
gam;
•D .6 O
°1 0
0 'o ro
J N cn
a 0-
0- 0
ro O
w
N
S <
CD
' <D
� <D
N v
ro s
o
ca>
A
D m O �o v
CD ro
0 3 ? c a,
ro CD cn
co (D N
�3 0
CD. CD
=3 o
CD
o N a
o �. o
N CD
co ` >s
a a• � K
Lr
o
(D
c CD
CD CD
O (D y
CD
CD
C/)
— O
CD co
v �-
ti =
zzz (A
c �
dd j �o �3
O W n Cl)
l(D7 y C
!xW = O CCD
N CD O
jQ�3 CD`,
O o N Q
N O .+ n m
U N �.
N a
N
o Q 5
CD * � m
CD
< N Q
c
0 �.
ro 3 O o.
a 3 g v�
ro CD <
OCD
N p
3 v
(D a
n �
O � O
ro
O
S N
N N
N N
N Q
Q �
C CLm
Q a,
(DC)
N
ro �
CD Q
a
a
N
v
r
O
0
D
r
2
D
N
D
v
D
O
z
r
D
z
X
m
m
0
X
O
cn
Cn
G
D
r
X
m
m
n
m
G)
O
z
x
z
n
O
m
X
x
cn
r
O
0
D
r
2
D
N
D
v
D
O
z
r
D
z
X
m
m
0
X
O
cn
Cn
G
D
r
X
m
m
n
m
G)
O
z
x
c
\
\
/
w
> m ±m
CD �$\\ /k
z$cn q9 »R
\�5- \§
s o Z3 CD
k' \ CD
CD 0 e �
a ) �_ (
kwl
E'= �-
_*C
� \_ �
4 �
%
/ \
cIcn ySO
/�W /
%Lo
%E \
Z C) ®
/\
\\
m,m o
# \
\
CDƒ 2
\ E g
\
/ o 9
.] m
/ ] §
m m
\�� \
) \
0 \
_- ®
a
Z.
SI)
,
2 E c
& § ƒ
> \ \
< D
ch
0 ' G
O g
X
m \
z m \
0 \
m CO
X x Cl) m &
0
�f >
&� CA
\ 2 k
a 2
/ co) <
77/
/� $
\ � �
CD ~ §
(ID \
/� 2
7§
c') \ k
zr
} ƒ k
) \ /
2m =
\ ) /
ke
\CD\
E�
ƒ 5'
\/
\ c)
ƒa
»� o
/ \
@ 5'
4
\
§
\
(
a
}
&
\
\
\
\
/
a
@
\
\
%
9
»m
&��
cc:?3/\
\f>
n
0
G
§ q
g
z
$
/E/
z
S
m
5'2
f q±
2
\ i
o
\ \
/ \
k
r
CD
0)
A
\�(�
__E_
.1)
(n
E
~&_
�-
I
/
\
CD
/
7
CDto
7
0
»
E
Z o
m
o
0
E
o c
\�E
/\/
z
Zg�r\\\
$
$/[]�§
°
\s
� k
�.��o
o $
o:yt
�=-ne
MW
:m
CD
m
/E
\j
$
E
o
*
/
CD
(
w
a$
n
E/
j
\ \
CD
C\
\E
_\\
\\
: \
ƒ
$
/
/
/
/
/
E
@
\
£
O
z
m
�
D
m
_D
0
z
x
n
0
z
$
z
/
z
S
m
£
O
z
m
�
D
m
_D
0
z
x
C
0
0o D 171
j
A
D m
r-
50,000(D
��
_
<3OR
N O
(D O O O N N
a c
CL
M
-.
Cry N N
r
N C N
y 3 .fiC=D9 CD nv .6 h 7
(`OD'
3
(D pl 7
o a�
CD
O CL A S N
p1 (D O
Coto
--
C
Q O N
— 7
O
S. N
0
y
O
J (ZD
y n
.J 3CD n<
N 3 (D O
S.
cp O
D)
o to O
O
m
C-
o
y 0'
w 0' y (0 CL
y
d
O O C
0.
O y
3 y 0_CD
Q (a
3
0.
CD n (D
3a
CL
(CD n. v
Q`
N
m O v
.
-d
='a
c 0�
C
p
?
V)
3 d 7
0
Cl)n a
a� m
(DD
-Oi�
=.
N
N a0
c A in
w 3
Q(D
3
FL a
(D
7' d
N 0.N
(D
D)
Cc
0)
cc
cn CD
'I CDv o
_
r.
0
m 0.
CA
cn m
1
CD
3 ca
1
CCD D u%
m (n
D
C
C > N
w m
co
O N N
c0
-% (Q
CD
3
fl
n 1n
>v
v v
: �o
V
-0
V V O W 0
N
n
v 7 d 0
U1
U1 CT (D D1 0)
X Q Q
0) X W
V O O
A
A A� 0 7
(p
3 CD
0 7
D) 7 e�
�'
co
N 7 ••►
;003--a
(D - N
Q) 0
:003
(D 1 0
4t
C �
Cl)
v-�v
m
70
= CD
CD
N 3 a
N (D
a (D
? Z
O-
a
o. nNi�M
viiCD
M
1
Q a N to
y'
to
CD N
m O N O
coC
3 0
�' a. 3
a
Q 3
CD CD
CD�
0cn
m
51 7
_3
y�'-►
Q /f 1
Q N
z (A
CD CD_
O y
k
(0
(/r S
y• N
2)
(� N
o
C
—
CD p
<
CD
g a
_
N
C
O cn
5'. (�D
!/J
3
N
CQ3 y
C40CD
3
�
a) CD
Z
3
`.
c'
D
C.
D
�.
cn
CD
N
o.
--
O
m
'!
Cy
O
w
X
:3
m
j
CD`�
CL
Z
5'
3
v
Z
n
n
O
C)
;a
D
X
X
X x cn m
6•
X
X CO) m
y
O
X
C-
c
o
C)
ca
D m
�-
c a) a 0
Cr (D C)
0) -0 p
o=r v eD
m 0
"O 7 CD O
W C
CD 3 0
CD y
O_ A O O
0 0 C =�
N O OCL C
0 On
a)
N
N
CDa) O S
N CSA �
N
J y "-
W
tCD
C 3
=� .�
ao
'3c
.may m
� o m
o'o m
N
�
7 C&�' d
=�
o
=3�
CD =r
ON � � �
O 2)O CD
o
dN
O-
n
SO
-Ci fD -0
A Cl) Cr
=rO O
CD -p a
o O
N 0.
C
c
CD CL
O O C
EL
=
O C
0-0
M o -
CD
O n n 7
O a)
6'0 N
o
N• w
a)
s� ='Q
O
9) n
CD B a
S
N CD CD
N a d
N
_o
ncg
_ 3
3
�^
aco,
O CL N`
N �
3 N O Cp'
Cw
a 0 to
N
0-0)CSE
O
CD �
0 �
3 o
M CD O
= a)
al CD O 7
CCD N 7
O
CD C A AO
O
3 O+ O y
CD
N 3 N
A r
CD (b
O CD
O
-,
oO
_ - d
o
c 'O
N
n - N CD
�•
N A
X' - O
A .N.. 3. Co
CD CD
CL ' to
ZE.�
D
m
v
�
v
cn
O
-, -
CD CLa)
C1 'O O
O N
-p_ CO N - CL
CD m
Q
3.
CD
�_
0
CD O Cp
O
631 n
d
CD fl. - CD
CD C
m d
N CD
CD
X• d
CD w
CD
0.CD y O
�. j
S
O
0
0
-
CA
C
ic
3
D
X
N
n
O
X
m
p
co
CO) CO) CST � - O
d
00 N7
X K
0)0
CD
7a != 3.
O 3
CNO O3
O O
Q Z.
o
N
�
p O)
CCD
_
�
m
(O
N
m 0
o <
CD
N A
CD
0 n
N
N
3R�
n
CD
CD
o'
o
v
CD CD
p
7 N
m
m
m m
n
m'
CD
o O
l<
-•r
of
CD
CD
_
N
�_ 3
N
CD
PL
a)
O
O
S
O
N
a1 N
ncg
�^
aco,
°:0
O
a
N
C
O
O
N
3 o
d
r-
O
0-
p• O �
C Cr
O
d
CD
A O
o N
CD C
Z a
A r
CD (b
C1CD
N
,z
d
C
fD
N
CD
a=1
a
ZE.�
D
m
v
�
o•
-
cn
O
�
J d
v
�_
a)
O
C cx
m `
CD cc
A O
m
N
N-
r2
o
v
0
o
-
O
co
=3
°cp'nm
D
m
a
CD
o
CCD
zm
M
z y
-1
—
mCD �3_
n
CD
m
O
3-
O
z
O
x
x
x CO) m
Q Z.
_
c)
co
D m
O M
_
�
c-
r
O
03 010
0
3
- -Q
CL
-
n
1D
7 N
n• N
CD CD
d
Cp
CD
CD CD
3
-•r
m
3
- (D
°'•oma
0)m
Q ID
_.
x
D
C)mw,
Q
ncg
�^
aco,
°:0
O
' CD 0
0
0 0
��
3 o
d
r-
D
y
0-
p• O �
C Cr
O
0,
A O
o N
CD C
Z a
A r
CD (b
O
p,
N
,z
v
CD Q,
� a)
ZE.�
D
m
3
-.
`_
^►
J d
�_
a)
O
C cx
m `
CD cc
A O
m
N
N-
r2
0
0 ..
=CD
O
O
CC]
D
°cp'nm
D
'o =
v
CD
o
CCD
zm
M
-1
—
mCD �3_
CD
m
CD
3-
O
z
O
3
CCD
�p
CD ?A
Err0)tnp
CD
a
y
w
D
z
y.
adv
ZC
-n
am
0
o, m (D�
�
3
_0
w
m
o �'
Cq H• co
CD
�,
z
--
A
C
4)
C
CDD y
OWj
X
y CD 0
m
C, ��
0 O'
C)
a •3,
-p 0 0
4
Q
O
O
O
to
n ;• n
N C
'.00 0 ?
O-
y
0.
-
CO)
C
Q)
CD CD
CA
3
G
CCC
S
C
D
j
—i
CD
C
7
r
O y
(n
O
y n
_
�
N
p
<
y
C
CD
V
7
0-0
v
Q
d;
y
W
j
vi
to
pt
Q
m
(n0
3
a
Q) CD
-
o
OCO)
a
z
0
m
-n
-n
CA
CD
n
a'
r
CD
CCD
N
C
3 0
3
C
3
2)
CD
N
CQ
O
O
O
O n
A
v
O
CD Cn
C
3.
C1
0
R
X Q
N
Q
T
CD
3
C-
a'
p
o
-.
D
X
A
O
3•
4
o
acOn
_Q
n
>
m
v
C
O
m
-n
0
0
o.
X
m
CD
m
CD
:3Z
o
m
CD
CD
� �•
Z
co)
m
n
_
_O
CD
70o
m
O
CD
X
x
x
CO) m
z
0
x
N
0
0
0
r
en o
n a
r -L cn o 3
CL _
z
o 7
p
0 O
CD CD
0 0
(CD p
(D 3
(�'° 3
C
cn
Q
a
cE.ocs3cg
Q
(p CD
3
p
D
Z
°' n
CDa�Qs�o�
pcn
°
0
r
m m 3 m m
(p (D (D
m CD
,"-�.
0
---1
CD
.�
j3
CD
Z
_-
o� =oma
CD CD
�o�
CD_o
z
HT
cD
a:
o
D
Q-
-a O 5< O
O
ha
�
O_ vn N
� N
0
D
CD
N
vm
v
cn O
J
�►
O CL (on ^�. O_
0. O_
O
C1
C
�i
Er c N
Q_ CL
x
Q
�(D O
O D
��
(D O 0
�O O
0�
–�
(D
(D o a CD 0
fl
j
•�*,
7
m
v= a
p(D
Z) CL
7
?
C
Q =�
rr
(D
O_ (D O_
—_ (D -O (D
7 O.
(D
(D
CL
n
- Q
CD
En n
O
(O
D
_
(n v 7(n
cn
v
v (D O (D
=
p
�
Z' 5. n
0 -
a
'a
(fl - _ 0
(Q CL
D
—
O
6 3 C 6
�m
C 0
C
O.
(D S O
(D
��
�*
m c�flm
am
mom,
v,�D��
on °1
ma
0
OZ
s (o
'�
(a
to
CD
D
�:
m 3 0 3
�m �(D
3
CD CD
O�
c O. _ (D
�_ oo
-0
Q
N
v� �
m�
�
CLC -0 C
o
D
O O
cn O
�
J
0 O- N O_
�a) nQ)
O Q
Z)2)
n
CD
�
((D (Q (D
< N
O
mn. v0
y o
a
��m
m v,Q
oo'
m
O_
n
—
(Dco
SOm
a
o 9 r
(e)
O O
O X in _►
v O
x
N O
N
_
n
O
ao3
�o�
O,..
(n
•�.
cn
cn
(D (D
CD
m - m
a
m
�
D
CD
CD
r
D Cf)
CL CD
(n D 771
CD
o
-a -nD
T`
o
CD
3m <
o2
(O CD
o <
c
Q
D
C Q`
CD
CD
y n
n C
C
3
7 C N
3
y
0
(n O
_ C
v
(n
q
CD N
O
6
3= n
CD
0 n
CD
CD 07 0
(DG
y
(Q
(no
0
�.
m
a
3
3
;.
CD
Q
D
CD
O_
;:w
5"
(�
n
o
Q
C
CD
o
n'
o
oCD
cn
o
N
<
(ll
ti
zr
(n
(D
cn
O
Cn
CD
O
<
2r.
CL
CL
Q
�
D
_S
(Dm
rD
m
o
cD
<
C7
c
U)
0=
cn
?
O
D
°
n
3
CD
v
<
�'
XO
m
CD
m
°
w
v
m
D
(Qa
a
;ocn
z
w
zo
cn
m
n
0
G1
O
0—
X
X
p
X
x x
x cn m
x
x
x cn m
z
x
L'
C
3
3
D
CO)
0
O
X
m
x
Dm 33 N n oo pm a�� r
o � o •Q l7 'o o 3'pa �, �p m 3 p a OQ y' n
3 0 _Q m tD m o �'�_ o cD c o 0o CD - n D
3 Co cn o o 3 d� v,.o 01 ca o y �'M p- r
c n
me � CD m 3 •oc mco=o0>_3� C-) o D
o = * a� a 0 - c -n �3 ami �'CD
0 0
>>- oo c 0)oom ��:3 - v,'o3 rD
v a' � a -. n 3 5 v o 3' � n a n y -. r. 77
ca = v `. fA f0 p N 3 CD N ti `. 0 (�
CD -. mw3 oaf- - c-. 3
Cr a o �co o CD m y _CL n j^ k O
O CD :3'0 CD "p 3''D —a v 0 Cn
�6v `: cNom-,m o? co •*
CD v a Stu 9' a �� m
(Op O, 7 CD X CD 'O O fD 3 j Q O O y O- O Cc D
CL CD .3-. O 0 .�< O 7 3 �_ 7 j � CCD O
7 (0 .J v CD '0 (D Cc C •J �O
cy 3 7 a O' cn 0 7 o CD 3 CD a 0 O
�=-0=r ry m3o-o mama cQo m� O z
x 0)0) 00 3 (b y 3 r
N= 3 O 7 �. CO to fD O CD -' O CD
m oo3o cn co
=r < O z
0 3 0 O CD y N j CS �, .O 1 S C) n N
CD m
a �? sic s co =�`. 0 <
a ° mmCDC
'O CD F O Cl) A 7 p O CDG
7
N 0 Cl) 7 N n CD co
O X 7 y 00 CD 0 y
� W CD 0 4) IQ � N y p CD O Z1
CL CL a 0
N .•. n N N :3r. ? :/:
CSD O- CD C ('OD O- CSD O ?
CO
*
CD ik 6 D
zr r
�m ca C/)3 70 CD� T
=r sn d O ,: =r sv o
CD CD w
CDco CD CD
Q. a �• y d
CL CD
CA H O .a n CD O y y z.
O O N O CD _y
CD 3 C n 0 O N o c' C
N v, CD
o'er 3 0
Q r . CD tc
o 'o CD n � CD o CD
fD O
(D N Cn Co C1
7 Gi 3 N
s u► O N m �_ -o '0 3 N �'
(D �, O O N - CD
_ C7 d 7 <
O i A y Q O•
CD CCo
SD c 3 CD co CD
O CSD
CC -D. w�• � -0 3 N
O O 0 .n.
CU NO �. N 0
C S
6 Cp O C U) to ul' m CD
3 tU v o m y
�' oo
CD << D 3 c0i 3
X0
cc m '� cc' a o c�D
N arn o 0
— o w o
—° �' 00 o CD o
CD 0 m `- 3 o v
3 = O cc O' T
a � a' cn a m
CAm � �; 3
D
o X
z 0 CCD z 0 °,"
X tea—, 700 m O
x cn M x x x x co m z
x
January 13, 2010
Mr. Dennis Sigrist
State of Oregon
Office of Homeland Security
Oregon Emergency Management
P.O. Box I4370
Salem, Oregon 97309-5062
Dear Mr. Sigrist:
U.S. Department of Homeland security
Region X
1311' -28th Street. SW
Bothell, WA 98021-9796
pt p��f
�r FEMA
As requested, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has completed a pre -adoption review of the following plans:
• City of Lake Oswego Addendum to the Clackamas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Wilsonville Addendum to the Clackamas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Gold Beach Addendum to the Curry County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
The plans successfully contain the required criteria, excluding the adoption. for hazard mitigation
plans, as outlined in 44 CFR Parts 201. This letter serves as Region 10's commitment to approve
each plan upon rccciving adoption documentation from its respective city.
Each plan will not be formally approved by FEMA until it is adopted. Each city is not eligible for
mitigation project grants until its plan is formally approved by FEMA.
Please contact our Regional Mitigation Planning Manager. Kristen Meyers, at (425) 487-4543 with
any questions.
Sin rely, �
van Ike
fish Analysis Branch Chief
Mitigation Division
Kiel:bb
January 13, 2010
Mr. Dennis Sigrist
State of Oregon
Office of Homeland Security
Oregon E,�.o.,...1 y Management
P.O. Box I4370
Salem, Oregon 97309-5062
Dear Mr. Sigrist:
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit}
Region X
110 2281h StrccL SW
Wthell. WA 98021-9796
FEMA
As requested, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has completed a pre-adoptio..of the following plans:
• City of Lake Oswego Addendum to the Clackamas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Wilsonville Addendum to the Clackamas County Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Gold Beach Addendum to the Curry County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
The plu.,b .5.,6Jfully contain the required criteria, excluding the adoption. for hazard mitigation
plans, as outlined in 44 CFR Parts 201. This letter serves as Region 10's commitment to approve
each plan upon .,,,,,,. adoption documentation from its r; ,r ��:'.,, . city.
Each plan will not be formally,;,... ;,d by FEMA until it is adopted. Each city is not eligible for
mitigation project grants until its plan is formally : 1 by FEMA.
Please contact our Regional Mitigation Planning Manager. Kristen Meyers, at (425) 487-4543 with
any questions.
van Ike
Risk Analysis Branch Chief
Mitigation Division
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 23, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular Cit, :ouncil meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on March
23, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 38, A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff (7:47 by
phone), Tierney, and Jordan
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital
Development; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Director; Christine
Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Brad Stein, Management Analyst
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 WaterAfrica Proclamation
Linda Favero, 5831 Ridgetop Court, and Bill Savage, 4804 Heritage Lane, were present.
Ms. Favero indicated that WaterAfrica was a small non-profit that started last fall. She expressed
their appreciation for the Council's support of the Walk for Water as a community effort. She
explained that the people of Zambia considered this sort of formal procedure as a great horor.
She described their trip to Zambia in October 2008, mentioning in particular a woman walking six
to eight hours a day to obtain contaminated water that she knew would only make her children
worse (they were already ill from water -borne illnesses), but she had no alternative. She reported
that the one well (purchased by WaterAfrica and serving 800 people in a village) has cut the
mortality rate in half. In addition, children were back in school and the villagers could grow crops
for consumption and sale.
She mentioned that a number of Lake Oswego businesses were sponsoring this third year of the
Walk for Water, through which they hoped to raise 824,000 to fund two more wells and sanitation
education in Zambia. She described the simulation walk that would begin in Foothills Park this
year, walk to collect water from the lake, and return. She said that visitors from Zambia would be
present, as well as a water specialist from World Vision.
She invited the Council to send someone to make comments at the event. She closed with a
quote from President Obama's inaugural speech regarding working with other nations.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the walk began at 9 a.m. on Saturday, April 17. Mayor
Hoffman indicated that someone from the City Council would read the proclamation at the event.
Mayor Hoffman proclaimed Saturday, April 17, 2010. as WaterAfrica Day in Lake Oswego.
Councilor Hennagin applauded their work. He mentioned that he had been in Tanzania in
October 2008 on behalf of Africa Bridge, which also tried to bring water to villages. He suggested
that WaterAfrica, Africa Bridge, and Pennies for Kenya (since all three were headquartered in Lake
Oswego or West Linn) get together under one administrative office for greater effectiveness. Mr.
Savage commented that Councilor Hennagin's point was well taken.
3.2 Streetcar Update
Mr. Williams introduced Karen Withrow, Metro Public Involvement Manager, who was a key
individual working on the Lake Oswego to Portland transit project. He commented that the project
City "- ouncil Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11
March 23, 2010
team members and consultants have accomplished a great dea; this past year in coming together
to work on the different alternatives.
He gave a PowerPoint presentation. He presented a list of the various agencies involved in this
project to improve the transit capacity on Hwy 43 between Lake Oswego and Portland. He noted
that they were in the middle of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and looking at the
three proposed alternatives: no build, enhanced bus service, and streetcar.
He explained that the streetcar alternative was an extension of the Portland Streetcar soUth from
downtown Portland. He reviewed its current route loop from northwest Portland, through the Pearl
District, downtotiim Portland, PSU, and River place, ending at the South Waterfront. He
commented that the intent was to provide a seamless extension of this first modern (and very
successful) streetcar system in the U.S. from the South Waterfront to Lake Oswego. He stated
that the Portland to Lake Oswego segment was not a separate line from the Portland Streetcar.
He reviewed the three alternatives. He described the benefits of the enhanced bus service,
including improved travel times with a reduced number of stops, more frequent bus service, and
park and rides. He indicated that the benefits of the streetcar were its greater reliability (it operated
on its own alignment — the Willamette Shoreline) and the development potential it offered in
Foothills, downtown Lake Oswego, and Portland.
He described a third benefit of the streetcar related to project funding. The Consortium could use
the much increased value of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way (from $2 million at the time of
purchase) to offset the local match.
He explained that the no build alternative maintained the existing transit services and facilities, and
looked at the modest improvements that would occur over time without enhanced bus or streetcar.
He explained that the NEEPA Act required a no build alternative, which the project team used as a
baseline of comparison for the other two alternatives.
He mentioned the issues considered in the DEIS, including all the human and natural
environmental impacts of each of the alternatives, the benefits, the costs, and the funding sources.
He explained that the DEIS would not be ready for public review until after the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) approved it.
He indicated that they had different design alternatives for the streetcar alternative, as it was more
complex than the other two alternatives. He mentioned that Ms. Withrow has met with LONAC and
neighborhood associations to present this information.
Ms. Withrow presented a graphic showing the routes through the six -mile corridor for the
enhanced bus and streetcar alternatives. She noted that the enhanced bus would keep the current
Lake Oswego downtown loop with stops at Safeway and ending at Albertson's.
She presented the five streetcar design options. She mentioned that design options A, C, and E
were associated with other projects going on in the area, while options B and D showed alignments
close to residences.
She indicated what the streetcar alignment would look like if the City of Portland extended the
Moody and Bond couplet in the South Waterfront, and if it did not (Option A). She described the
three alignment alternatives in the John's Landing area (Option B). She commented that staff was
also looking at the impact on the streetcar of the west interchange phase of the Sellwood Bridge
project, both if that phase went through and if it did not (Option C). She noted the alignment of the
streetcar line in the Riverdale area on Riverwood Road, as suggested by the neighbors (Option D).
She presented the two possible alignments in the Foothills District (Option E), with one running
adjacent to the freight rail line and one running through a new right-of-way, and both ending at the
Albertson's 300 -space park and ride. .
She explained that the DEIS was the FTA's document, and they could not present it for public
review until the FTA gave permission to do so. She anticipated the 45 -day public review period
beginning in mid-August. She indicated that staff would summarize the public comment received
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11
March 23, 2010
during that outreach (including at the public hearing) into a report for the Steering Committee. She
described the decision-making process on the locally preferred alternative (LPA), beginning with
separate recommendations to the Steering Committee by the project management group and the
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the Steering Committee recommendation, the local
jurisdictions' approval, and final approval by the Metro Council.
She reviewed the schedule, noting that the decision-making on the LPA would occur in the fall.
She anticipated preliminary engineering and the final envirorrnental impact statement in 2011,
followed by a full funding grant agreement, final engineerina, and construction. She noted the
target operation date of 2016.
Mr. Williams discussed the issues recently raised regarding the streetcar. He reported that the
project was on budget for the first cost component of the current staff work and the loan to TriMet.
He explained that the DEIS evaluated the other two cost components of construction costs and
operating costs. He indicated that the $350 million estimate represented the value of the project
more than it did the actual cost. In addition to including the construction, design, and vehicle
purchase costs, it included the value of the right-of-way. He noted that the most recent appraisal
of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way returned a value in the $80 million to $100 million range.
He mentioned staff's hope to have more accurate numbers on the capital side this summer,
developed as part of the DEIS.
He noted the assumption that TriMet would take care of the operating costs of both the enhanced
bus service and the streetcar. Staff was working on those numbers for inclusion in the DEIS.
He referenced the concern about how Lake Oswego would pay for its share of funding the project.
He reiterated that the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way would make up most of the local match;
staff was working on how to allocate the remainder of the local match appropriately to the
participating jurisdictions.
He mentioned their working assumption that the development in the Foothills area and continued
redevelopment in the Downtown would cover almost the entire cost assigned to the City of Lake
Oswego. He said that he was developing alternatives for Council on the numbers.
He discussed the transfers question. He pointed out that transfers depended on where one was
coming from and where one was going to. He indicated that the project was taking a look at how
transfers would occur with the two different alternatives in comparison with the existing service
from the #35 bus. He reported that staff's initial look at the issue found that the two alternatives
covered most of the Portland downtown entertainment and employment areas. He noted that the
benefit of the streetcar was its extension into the Pearl District and NW Portland.
Ms. Withrow described the proposed extension of the streetcar across the Willamette River over
the Broadway Bridge and down to OMSI. She mentioned that Metro was still looking for funding to
complete the piece from OMSI across the proposed Milwaukie Bridge and into the South
Waterfront.
Mr. Williams reported that staff met with the affected neighborhood associations (Lakewood, Old
Town, and Evergreen). The neighborhoods' concerns focused on the park and ride, its structure,
and its impact on traffic and parking in the neighborhoods. He indicated that the City had the
means to minimize any impacts. He said that staff would check with the neighborhoods to see that
the park and ride structure design worked well for them and minimized, if not eliminated,
neighborhood impacts. He reviewed the membership of the nine -member volunteer Citizen Action
Committee, chaired by Ellie McPeak with representatives from the neighborhoods and business
community.
He mentioned the upcoming Council tour of the streetcar alignment in May.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11
March 23, 2010
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Ms. Withrow confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that Union Pacific retained ownership of the
railroad freight line right-of-way and leased it to Western Pacific.
Councilor Olson referenced the articles in the press lately reporting that the WES rider ship was
less than expected, and that the federal government has been skeptical of TriMet's rider ship
projections in the past. She asked if staff has revisited its rider ship projections for the streetcar.
Mr. Williams reported that he checked with the Metro staff that did these projections, and obtained
a list of the projected and aCual rider ship figures for opening day on several regional projects. He
indicated that they did not know why the WES projections were off, but the projections for other
projects in the region have been impressively almost right on. He explained that, in the aggregate,
the projections were 3% low, although that did not include the Portland streetcar, which saw higher
opening day rider ship than projected. He stated that, given this data, he felt comfortable that
Metro's forecasting was some of the best in the country.
Councilor Jordan asked whether the comparison costs of the alternatives in the DEIS (Draft
Environmental Impact Statement) included the differences between the streetcar running on
electricity and the enhanced bus service running on gas (or an alternate non -electric fuel) and
causing wear and tear on the asphalt.
Ms. Withrow indicated that she was not certain how detailed the greenhouse gases analysis in the
DEIS Energy section was, or whether it calculated the cost difference between the alternatives.
She commented that the process was still catching up with respect to greenhouse gas scenarios,
but there were plans to figure more detail on that factor into the analyses for future high capacity
transit corridors.
Ms. Withrow concurred with Councilor Jordan that they decided the alignment to Portland and
the mode before they did the design and engineering. They also did not yet know how it would
connect to Lake Oswego's downtown and Foothills. She explained that at this point they used a
5% design to evaluate the alternatives and alignments; that percentage would increase as they
moved forward.
Ms. Withrow clarified to Councilor Tierney that, once the jurisdictions submitted the locally
preferred alternative (LPA), they began a separate funding approval process, in which they
typically asked for 60% of the estimated costs. She indicated that this was a competitive process
for federal discretionary money allocated for transit. She said that the federal funds were not
guaranteed, although Portland has consistently received money (60% minimum) in the past for all
its projects.
Councilor Tierney commented that, given his education on development issues since being on
the Council, he was trying to rationalize a 300 -stall public parking garage in a transit -oriented
development (TOD) as a way to improve the community and generate higher property values. Mr.
Williams indicated that staff was aware of the concerns of providing up to 400 parking stalls in the
area, and intended to spend more time looking at the issue. He noted the other concerns that not
providing parking at the streetcar terminus would impact the neighborhoods. He mentioned that
the Council would likely have some policy choices to consider, given the desire to minimize the
number of stalls in the corridor.
Mr. Williams explained that the federal funding criteria has changed since they began this project;
it now included development, development potential, and livability issues, instead of relying solely
on rider ship projections. He emphasized the need to do more work in minimizing the impacts to
the City's street system and its neighborhoods.
Mayor Hoffman suggested scheduling another study session to answer additional questions
3.3 Centennial Moment
Due to time constraints, Mayor Hoffman set this item aside.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11
March 23, 2010
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Hennagin moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [6-0]
4.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.1.1 October 20, 2009, regular meeting
4.1.2 November 17, 2009, regular meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
Kirk Smith
He explained that he was bringing this parking problem in his neighborhood to the Council because
he was having problems with the Planning Department regarding enforcing the condition of
approval on LU 08-0028. He explained that the condition required the contractor submit a
construction management traffic plan to the Engineering Division for review and approval, which
specially addressed parking for construction workers on Springbrook Court and adjacent streets.
He indicated that the contractor did not submit this plan, as he has informed Ms. Frisbee, the City
Attorney, the Mayor, and a Councilor.
He mentioned the e-mail he received from Ms. Frisbee, telling him that one of the conditions of
approval required the applicants to inform the Engineering Services Division on how they would
manage traffic during construction. He stated that that was not what the order or the condition of
approval said. He indicated that he was coming to his elected representatives because he has
been rebuffed by the Planning Department.
He explained that there were two issues: there was no construction traffic management plan in
place, and the contractor took down the City's No Parking signs, which he understood was an
illegal act. He alleged that the contractor took down the signs preventing parking next to the job
site because his workers were lazy. He recounted his efforts to talk to the contractor, which have
not been successful. He mentioned calling the police, who would cite any vehicle parked too close
to the intersection as being in a life safety lane. He reiterated that the contractor's workers claimed
that they could park next to the job site because nothing said that they could not park there.
However, that was because the contractor pulled the signs down.
He explained that he got upset at the workers' blocking the life safety corridor because a neighbor
was a quadriplegic and needed access to paramedics and ambulances. If a truck blocked the life
safety area, then the paramedics could not get into the neighborhood.
Mayor Hoffman directed Mr. Smith to talk to Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Director, and
David Powell, City Attorney.
Councilor Olson asked staff to inform the Council of the resolution of this situation, especially the
taking down of City signs. Mr. Powell indicated that he did not know much about the facts in this
case, but it was true that removing City signs was not legal.
Ms. Frisbee reported on her investigation into Mr. Smith's concerns. She explained that,
according to the City Attorney, the requirement for a traffic construction management plan was
triggered when the contractor intended to use part of the City right-of-way to park trucks, etc.
Since the contractor indicated in this case that he did not intend to do so, staff required no formal
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11
March 23, 2010
Dlan. She mentioned that the City Attorney's Office has confirmed that the documentation
submitted by the contractor did satisfy the requirement for a construction management plan.
She held that the problem was not with Planning, but rather it was an issue of enforcement. She
indicated that Nancy Flye in Traffic Services was working with Lt. Scott Thran to resolve this issue.
• R.A. Fontes, 310 Second Street
He read from his prepared testimony. He addressed the issue of streetcar travel times. He argued
that the projected streetcar travel tir7' -,in combination with the proposed alignment would add half
an hour to round trips. He described ',1etro's numbers as pessimistic and not supported by hard
data. He spoke to setting as a minimum threshold that a project not make transit worse. He stated
his belief that the streetcar had `juggernaut' status. He supported keeping the current bus as it was
or as an express.
• Charles Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Clackamas County
He described the streetcar as a series of shell games generating many concerns. He asked what
the Council defined as `downtown Portland.' He referenced Metro's Streetcar Report (July 12,
2007) that used PSU as the target in Table 5.1. He commented that his target was Pioneer
Courthouse Square, the intersection of the four light rail lines. He indicated that the target of the
streetcar riders from Lake Oswego was the Multnomah County Central Library, five blocks away
from Pioneer Courthouse Square.
He encouraged the Council to try to get from the PSU Urban Center to the Portland City Hall in a
wheelchair, which route had roughly a 6% grade. He asked the Council to define by resolution
what constituted `downtown Portland' and what the target area was. He indicated that he would
keep asking his questions, including those sent by e-mail, until he got some answers.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to coordinate the phone hook-up with
Councilor Moncrieff. He reconvened the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Councilor Moncrieff joined the
meeting at this time.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Street Maintenance Fee Discussion
Resolution 10-19, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council adjusting Street
Maintenance Fee rates
Resolution 10-20, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council establishing annual
indexing of Street Maintenance Fee rates
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Kirk recalled that previously staff presented to Council the funding methodology for the street
maintenance fee, the public engagement process, and the need to increase revenues in order to
keep the streets in good shape. She mentioned the request, based on feedback and Council
action, to phase the fee in over three years (25%, 35%, and 40%). She noted that this represented
increasing the investment in the roads by $1.2 million over the three years. She indicated that the
first resolution related to phasing in the increase, and the second related to indexing the street
maintenance fee.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the public hearing. He reviewed the testimony time limits and order.
• Jerry Wheeler, 13594 Blazer Trail, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive
Officer - -
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11
March 23, 2010
He read from his prepared testimony. He reported that the Board of Directors' vote to approve a
resolution in support of the proposed street maintenance fee increases was far from unanimous
(13 -7-1 with three members out of town). He read the resolution. He mentioned the discussion of
indexing the fee for inflation. He indicated that the Chamber supported maintaining the streets.
He spoke of the Chamber's concern that doubling the fee was not acceptable in the current
economic situation, noting the City's acceptance of their request to phase the fee in. He
mention- 1 the Board's continuing concern regarding not using reserves to reduce the fee increase.
Mayor r offman closed the public hearing.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Ms. Kirk confirmed to Councilor Olson that Chart 3 (p.49) indicated that, if the City had indexed
the fee last year, the indexing beginning in July would have decreased the fee. Mr. McIntyre
pointed out that the indices went up and down, and the Engineering News -Record index happened
to go down.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that not keeping up with City street maintenance would ultimately
lead to higher costs impacting the residents for street maintenance. She spoke in support of
indexing the fee in order to make sure that the City did the projects needing doing every year, and
that they did not fall behind again on street maintenance. She commented that once the City got
the PCI (Pavement Condition Index) back up to a 70 average, then maintaining the streets to that
level would be less expensive.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that the Council could 'collar' the index to prevent it
from going too high or too low, similar to the 'collar' on labor contracts. Ms. Kirk mentioned that
the City of Tigard collared its index at 2% and 7% to prevent both a large decrease and a large
increase, which she said was a reasonable range.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that he could easily add language to the resolution to
collar the rate, should the Council decide to amend the resolution.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Hennagin observed that there was no doubt that the City's current revenues from gas
taxes or franchise fees were insufficient to maintain the streets. He cited Hemlock Street from
Cornell to Freepons Park as an example of the many streets in the city that needed reconstruction.
He mentioned his concern about asphalt costs rising astronomically again. He said that he was
impressed that two out of three members of the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee
supported a phased in increase to the fee.
He commented that, while he hated to keep raising fees, the City's number one job was to maintain
the infrastructure, and they needed to pay for it. He said that he was still constitutionally opposed
to indexing. He expressed his preference to wait on the indexing until after completing the three
year phase in. Therefore; he would vote against the indexing.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Cornelius got under the wire for raising its
gas tax to fund street maintenance. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the State legislature shut
out that option last year. Mayor Hoffman referenced an article sent by Craig Stevens discussing
considerations for a street maintenance fee.
Councilor Olson mentioned that she would like to hear the City Engineer's response to that
article. She seconded Councilor Hennagin's reluctance to index the fee. She commented that she
saw value in discussing the fee yearly or biannually in case the Council decided to change funding
sources or the PCI target.
Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 10-19, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
adjusting Street Maintenance Fee rates. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11
March 23, 2010
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan's comments. She indicated that, in light of
the current economic strains on the City's business and residential customers, she supported
phasing in the increasing over three years.
Councilor Johnson commented that if they were going to have a street maintenance fee in the
city, then they needed to do it right; which meant passing this resolution. She spoke to getting the
City back on track and adjusting the fee to achieve the Council goals. She suggested that looking
at how to alleviate the fee in the future, possibly usir7 general fund monies, should be another
goal.
Councilor Tierney recalled that he has supported number of fee increases for a variety of City
infrastructure and services, as they did need infrastructure. He commented that he would
challenge the City Manager's budget presentation and look at infrastructure over other possible
expenditures. He held that today was not the time to increase this fee by this magnitude. He
stated that he would not support the resolution.
Councilor Jordan commented that, while she understood the difficulties that increasing this fee
would have on Lake Oswego residents and businesses, she thought that the citizens would not
respond well to the question of what they would take away from other services in order to have
good roads. She observed that the residents moved here for all the services, and it was difficult to
separate one out from the other as more important.
She remarked that she did not believe passing this increase now prevented the Council from
revisiting it in the future. She cited the interest in pathways and bike paths that this fee did not
cover currently. She argued that not to pass this fee increase at this point would get the City so far
behind on street maintenance that people would start to complain about the quality of the City
streets. She held that the residents were willing to pay for something that they knew they needed.
Mayor Hoffman stated that he would support the motion. He commented that he did not like
raising fees either in these economic times, yet it was necessary in order to take care of the City's
road system, as John Pullen has consistently advocated. He argued that a strong infrastructure
made for a strong community, maintained property values, and helped with economic
development.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motion r)assed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Jordan voting "aye." Councilors Olson and Tierney voted "no."
[5-2]
Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 10-20, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
establishing annual indexing of Street Maintenance Fee rates. Councilor Moncrieff
seconded the motion.
Councilor Johnson commented that one of the reasons the Council was having this discussion
was because the previous Councils did not index the fee in the first place. She argued that if they
had a fee, then they should index it. She spoke to getting the base right, which then allowed future
Councils consider creative ways to help people in these tough economic times.
Councilor Tierney asked staff why they selected the Engineering (Mews -Record 20 city average
construction cost index. Mr. McIntyre explained that staff recommended using this index originally
because engineers used it to index a variety of other services. He described it as a reasonable
and comfortable index to use, similar to using the CPI for labor market adjustments. He indicated
that he was not qualified to answer the question of why this index went down this year when
everything else was going up.
Councilor Tierney moved to amend the resolution to establish a `collar,' that "in no event,
shall the annual index adjustment be less than a 2% increase or more than a 7% increase."
Councilor Jordan seconded the motion.
Councilor Johnson indicated that she would take the motion as a friendly amendment to her
motion. Councilor Moncrieff concurred.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11
March 23, 2010
A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." Councilors Hennagin and Olson voted "no."
[5-2]
Councilor Moncrieff left the meeting via the phone connection.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:14 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
8:15 p.m.
8. REPORTS
8.1 Resolution '10-21, adopting the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) Addendum
Mr. McIntyre introduced Brad Stein, Management Analyst, who joined the City staff to head up
the emergency management and risk management work.
Mr. Stein explained that the federal government required jurisdictions to revise and update their
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plans (NHMP) for submittal to FEMA and pre -approval prior to the
Councils adopting it. He indicated that this addendum summarized and captured all the potential
natural hazards that could adversely impact the City, its residents, and the property within. He said
that its adoption qualified the City to request pre -disaster mitigation funds for projects to counter
natural hazards, and to seek federal reimbursement after a natural hazard event occurred. He
mentioned funding for flood assistance mitigation programs and projects also.
He noted that the addendum included updated census information for Lake Oswego and updated
local hazard maps. He recommended adoption of the addendum.
Councilor Olson thanked Mr. Stein for a good report that she found helpful and informative.
Councilor Jordan moved Resolution 10-21, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
adopting the City of Lake Oswego addendum to the Clackamas County Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the
motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and
Jordan voting "aye." [6-0]
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.1.1 Councilor Jordan
Councilor Jordan reported that the voluntary watershed walk sponsored by the Friends of Tryon
Creek, which she took with a group of school children from Palisades Elementary School last
week, had been a great learning experience. She encouraged the Council members to participate
in one.
She suggested that. at a future meeting, the Council consider reducing the number of members on
the 50 plus Advisory Board from nine to seven, which was the normal number for Advisory Boards.
She indicated to Councilor Olson that the effort to combine the former Adult Community Center
Advisory Board with this new Board, following the 50 plus dialogs, probably contributed to the
larger number of members.
9.1.2 Announcements -- Mayor Hoffman
• Council tour of housing types in the greater Metro region — Sunday, May 2
• Neighbors Helping Neighbors -- May 1
• Proposed Streetcar tour — May 6
• Clackamas Cities Dinner — this Thursday night
• Stafford discussion — March 30
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11
March 23, 2010
Mayor Hoffman indicated that the discussion would focus on whether Lake Oswego should
join West Linn and assist with their pre -litigation evaluation and examination of Metro's decision
with respect to Stafford.
Mayor Hoffman reported on his meeting with 25 to 35 citizens at Chuck's Coffee Shop on
Saturday for one and a half hours. He said that he listened to their concerns and tried to address
questions. He mentioned that Councilor Olson was also there.
He reported that the Historic Resources Advisory Board, Coins ;ilor Olson, Mr. McIntyre, and he
looked at the Stone Bridge on Poplar Lane, an historic bridge: ;ouilt in the 1880s. He mentioned
that Carolyne Jones had more information about it.
He noted that the Council would begin its review of the Comprehensive Plan next week because of
its relevance to the budget, the sensitive lands issue, and Stafford.
9.1.3 State Statute impacting the Joint Water Project
Mayor Hoffman informed the Council that an issue has come up that affected the Joint Water
Project. Mr. Powell explained that the Department of State Lands (DSL) used to allow developers
of linear-type utilities to apply for a wetlands mitigation evaluation permit before going on a
property just to see if they could get the permit. He said that a recent Attorney General's opinion
interpreted the statute very literally in requiring the permit applicant either to own the property or to
have the property owner's consent before making application.
Mr. Powell noted the concern of municipalities that they would have to expend taxpayer resources
on a property before they even knew if they needed the property for a project. Mayor Hoffman
described how this affected the Joint Water Project, in that they were still deciding on the exact
land route; having to do wetlands mitigation on a given property could direct the route to another
property not requiring that mitigation. They did not want to have to buy a property before they
knew whether they needed it or not.
Mr. Powell mentioned that Mr. Komarek did a white paper on this issue from the municipal
perspective at the request of the League of Oregon Cities. He noted that this issue also tied into
the liquid natural gas efforts, which politicized the issue and made it controversial. He indicated
that the City's proposal in the white paper was to fix the problem for municipalities in order to avoid
expending taxpayer money acquiring interest in properties just to file an application unnecessarily.
The Council indicated by consensus that it had no objection to staff moving forward on getting this
issue cleared up for municipalities.
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
9.2.1 National League of Cities Conference
Councilor Tierney mentioned that an article he read on variables important to housing in the
future cited Gaithersburg, MD, as an example. Consequently, he, Mr. McIntyre, and Ms. Kirk
toured Gaithersburg while at the conference under the guidance of Trudy Schwartz, the
Gaithersburg Planning Director.
He indicated that Gaithersburg had a number of projects from the late 1980s into the 1990s
centered around New Urbanism, such as Kentlands and Lakelands. He referenced the booklet
that he had distributed recounting the development of Gaithersburg in the New Urbanism model
but without transit -oriented development, as it was the last stop on the Red Line in the Washington,
D.C. Metro area.
He read the characteristics of a New Urban community, as exemplified by the various projects in
Gaithersburg. He mentioned that both he and Ms. Kirk had concluded that this was a comfortable,
if not inexpensive, place to live. He presented several photos that Ms. Kirk took during the tour
illustrating the housing types, alley ways, parks, and streets in Kentlands and Lakelands. He noted
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11
March 23, 2010
that Ms. Schwartz confirmed that everything, including businesses, was within one-quarter mile of
housing.
Ms. Kirk mentioned that the walkaway for her was the neighborhood feel that the project achieved.
She described how the retail shops with housing above in the photo had a Whole Foods parking lot
on their backside, which was a creative way to put commerce opportunities within the living areas
yet mask the big box store and parking lot from the community.
Councilor Tierney presented _, map showing the form zoning. He described the complementary
relationship of the walkable Main Street with its little retail shops and restaurants to the big box
shopping centers. He indicate: to Mayor Hoffman that light rail was 10 miles away. Ms. Kirk
mentioned the City's plans to put in a commuter rail through the area.
Councilor Tierney showed examples of parks, historic facilities, white picket fences, alleys, and
garages. He mentioned that a number of the garages required maneuvering the car in order to get
into them.
He reported that they and Chris, the Capital Edge staffer, visited the Oregon Senators' offices and
Congressman Schrader's office on Monday to meet with staff and to discuss Lake Oswego's
investment in its water and sewer systems and the need for federal funding for the streetcar. Mr.
McIntyre indicated that he and Ms. Kirk met with Senators Wyden and Merkley on Tuesday after
the Oregon delegation returned from Oregon.
Mayor Hoffman said that he met with Senator Merkley and Congressman Schrader. He
commented that the staff was very important, which was why he wanted to invite the local staff of
the Oregon delegation to go on the streetcar tour. It provided another opportunity to talk about the
sewer and Foothills. Councilor Tierney noted that the staffers all knew about Lake Oswego and
its projects, which was a testimony to the legwork done by the Mayor and others, including Capital
Edge.
Councilor Tierney reported that the First Tier Suburbs Committee meeting was excellent with
many discussions from both a practical and an academic perspective on what was going on in the
suburbs. He indicated that this year's agenda would look at housing that appealed to people as
the demographics and needs changed. He mentioned the interest in more traditional First Tier
suburbs. He spoke of attending the Garland, TX, meeting, if possible.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he would take an acquaintance of Councilor Moncrieff's, a
planner/architect who would be part of the Public Library Association Conference, on a tour of Lake
Oswego this Saturday. He invited the Councilors to join them.
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON November 2, 2D10-)
Ja c�p. Hoffman, Major
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn CVhristie
City Recorder
Page 11 of 11