HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2024-02-06 AGENDA
04LA E ps CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
d5:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chamber- 3rd Floor
°REG°ta 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Staff Contact: Kari Linder, CityRecorder@lakeoswego.city
Virtual Access ADA Accommodation Requests Translation Services
This meeting will be held in lakeoswego.city/accommodation Traduccion o interpretacion
person.To participate remotely, 503-635-0282; Relay 711 i* M i
please email the City Recorder by Please allow four business days to gc4-4
noon the day of the meeting. process your request. 5
503-534-5738
This meeting will be livestreamed on the City's YouTube Channel and at lakeoswego.citv.The meeting will also
be broadcasted live on Tualatin Valley Community TV;check tvctv.org for details.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
The purpose of Public Comment is to allow community members to present information or raise an
issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public
hearing.A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. Public Comment will not exceed
thirty minutes in total, unless changed by the Mayor. If you are unable to attend the meeting and
prefer to provide public comment in writing, by phone or electronically, please email the City
Recorder by noon the day of the meeting.
5. PROCLAMATION
5.1 Black History Month.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion.
An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the Consent Agenda.
The City Council makes one motion covering all items included on the Consent Agenda.
Motion: Move to adopt the Consent Agenda.
Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service.
503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Page 2
6.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
December 19, 2023, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
January 2, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Motion: Move to approve the meeting minutes as written.
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
8. CONSENT AGENDA—Councilors Only
[Note: Only Councilors vote to concur in Mayor's appointments of Committee
members, per Charter, Section 19]
8.1 Resolution 24-06, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving the Appointments of Alternates to the Transportation Advisory Board and
the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Advisory Board.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-06.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
9.1 AP 23-03, An Appeal of the Development Review Commission's Decision to
Approve the Type II Tree removal application 499-23-001116-TREE at 2800
Wembley Park Road.
Public Hearing Process:
1. Review of quasi-judicial hearing procedure by Ellen Osoinach, City
Attorney
2. Staff Report by Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner
3. Testimony—the following time limits shall be observed, but may be
changed by the Council: 15 minutes for Applicant presentation;
15 minutes for Appellant presentation; 10 minutes for representatives
of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations,
government agencies, or other incorporated public interest
organizations; 5 minutes per individual; 5 minutes for rebuttal by the
Applicant
4. Questions of Staff
Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service.
503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Page 3
Motion: (Three Options, depending on whether or not the Council agrees with
the Commission's Decision, and, based on City Attorney recommendation,
whether additional findings are necessary)
1. Option 1 (with City Attorney recommendation to adopt Findings):Affirm
the Commission's decision to approve the tree removal application 499-23-
001116-TREE, with conditions of approval, and adopt findings, conclusions,
and order(Attachment 1); or
2. Option 2: Tentatively affirm the Commission's decision to approve the tree
removal application 499-23-001116-TREE, with conditions of approval; or
3. Option 3: Tentatively reverse the Commission's decision and deny the tree
removal application 499-23-001116-TREE.
Motions 2 or 3 should include: "and direct staff to present findings, conclusions,
and an order finalizing the Council's tentative decision on February 20, 2024."
10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service.
503-534-4225 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
5.1
-
,44.10
Proclamation
mow
� EGorV Black History Month
This Black History Month we celebrate the achievements of Black Americans and affirm their
place in this community. This month we focus on the stories of Black Americans, and in doing
so, we establish a foundation on which we can build a more true, more just, and more
promising vision of our shared future.
Cognizant of the perils of a fading history, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, established the Association
for the Study of African American Life and History in 1915. Dr. Woodson's dedication to the
preservation and study of Black life, culture and history culminated in the establishment of the
precursor to Black History Month in 1926.
In Oregon, we see the lasting impacts of Black Oregonians whose contributions have shaped
and improved our community. Some stories, often not well-known, include Markus Lopius, the
first Black man in Oregon in 1788, "York" who guided Lewis and Clark through tough terrains,
Leticia Carson, the first black woman with a land claim, Kent Ford, a leader providing food for
hungry children and establishing healthcare clinics and George Hardin, the first Black police
officer in Portland.
It is imperative that we publicly recognize and address the lasting effects of Oregon's founding
as a State originally inhospitable to Black people and the subsequent gentrification of
traditionally Black neighborhoods. The disparate impacts borne by Black families in earlier
generations continue to cast an unjust weight on current neighbors, necessitating our
commitment to rectify historical inequities.
May we continue to work together, as a community, to create a more just future for everyone,
highlighting stories from the past and the work still ahead. We will continue making history and
we pledge to honor Black Americans by creating a City where our Black community members
feel safe, valued and included.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Lake Oswego City Council, proclaim February
2024 as Black History Month. We call on the people of Lake Oswego to join their fellow
residents across the United States in observing this month through local programs and sharing
important stories. May we all make a conscious effort to keep alive the Black History that has
thoroughly enriched the fabric of our City, State and Nation.
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
February 6, 2024
6.1
o�c t COUNCIL REPORT
�� o
AEG%
Subject: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: February 6, 2024 Staff Member: Kari Linder, City Recorder
Report Date: January 25, 2024 Department: City Manager's Office
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation
0 Motion ❑ Approval
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial
❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded
❑ Resolution 0 Not Applicable
❑ Information Only Comments:
❑ Council Direction
0 Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
Project/ Issue Relates To: NA
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) El Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
1. December 19, 2023, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
2. January 2, 2024, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Respect. Excel'erce. Trust. Service.
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
ATTACHMENT 1
o s�
y.. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
V December 19, 2023
°RFGO�'
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. on Tuesday,
December 19, 2023. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-
person in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Verdick, Afghan, Corrigan, Wendland, and
Mboup. Councilor Rapf was excused.
Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari
Linder, City Recorder; Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager; Will
Farley, Senior Associate Engineer; Erica Rooney, City Engineer I Public
Works Director; Stefan Broadus, Associate Engineer
Others Present: Youth Leadership Council Members: Naomi Robinson, Liam Aranda-
Michel, Allison Korkola and Cara Chen
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PRESENTATION
4.1 Joint Letter with the Youth Leadership Council Supporting a Statewide Ban on the
Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products.
Naomi Robinson, Liam Aranda-Michel, Allison Korkola, Cara Chen, Youth Leadership
Council (YLC), introduced themselves and jointly presented via PowerPoint background
information on health risks and population disparities associated with flavored tobacco use, the
YLC's advocacy for legislation that would enact a statewide ban on flavored tobacco products,
and requested the City Council consider cosigning YLC's letter in favor of a statewide ban.
Mayor Buck noted a copy of the letter was included in the Agenda packet and thanked the YLC
for their presentation. Councilors Afghan and Mboup expressed pride in the YLC for its
advocacy on the issue and agreed to co-sign the letter. Councilor Mboup stated he would push
for a ban on flavored tobacco products in Lake Oswego, pending legal opinion.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8
December 19, 2023
Councilor Wendland asked the YLC members how much pressure there was to use tobacco.
Ms. Chen replied she had not experienced pressure to use tobacco, but she knew of groups
who used tobacco and other substances as a recreational activity who may experience
pressure. Ms. Korkola shared she had experienced some indirect pressure from friends at
school. Mr. Aranda-Michel stated no matter how pressure was experienced, he found the
normalization of use to be a pressing issue. Tobacco use was a ubiquitous and common sight
that desensitized people to its harmful effects on physical and mental health.
YLC members believed a ban would serve to provide a message contrary to the status quo.
Mayor Buck commented that the age to purchase tobacco products had recently increased
from 18 to 21 years old, however there was still prevalent underage usage. He asked if YLC
members could share, anecdotally, how youth managed to obtain tobacco products. Ms.
Korkola said that in her experience, there could be pressure from families and the majority of
people she knew who smoked obtained the product from family members, such as siblings, who
were older than 21 years.
In response to Councilor Wendland's question, Ms. Korkola believed tobacco products could
be used socially but also marketed as an easy way to relieve stress. Councilor Wendland
complimented YLC on the presentation and expressed support for the ban.
Mayor Buck noted bills were introduced in the Oregon Legislature to ban flavored tobacco, but
those bills had not been brought to the floor for a vote. The subject bill would likely not come up
in the short session because it had not been filed; however, signing the letter would encourage
legislative leadership to bring the bill forward in the next long session and place pressure on
lawmakers to bring the bill up for a vote. In signing the letter, Lake Oswego would join with other
communities to show broad support for passing the ban. The bill did have bipartisan support,
but the lobby pressures were heavy on the issue. He expressed interest in exploring what action
Lake Oswego could take on the issue locally, especially because some of the city's stores were
in Multnomah County where a ban on flavored tobacco was set to go into effect on January 1,
2024, while other stores were in Clackamas County where no such ban was under
consideration.
Councilors expressed unanimous support for signing the letter.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Gale Wallmark, Board Secretary, Friends of Luscher Farm read into the public
record the Friends of Luscher Farm leadership team's request that two Luscher
projects—a new safe vehicular access and expanded parking area, and an expansion of
agriculture programs—be prioritized as an initiative in the 2024 Parks Recreation and
Natural Area's goal during the City Council's upcoming 2024 goal setting. Friends of
Luscher Farm Treasurer, Robert Hansen, was also present.
• Edward Conrad read into the public record his written comments regarding the ALTA
Report on the McVey-Stafford corridor, highlighting concerns regarding pedestrian
safety, school zone designations, and the potential impact of Interstate tolling.
Mayor Buck confirmed the Council had received Mr. Conrad's written testimony and
appreciated the detailed information he presented.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8
December 19, 2023
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6.1 Authorize Purchase Agreement for a new Dump Truck.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with
Peterson Trucks for the purchase of a new International Dump Truck for $287,356.65.
6.3 Resolution 23-24, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Adjusting the Compensation for Charter Officers.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 23-24.
6.4 Approval of Meeting Minutes.
November 7, 2023, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
November 21, 2023, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Motion: Move to approve the minutes as written.
END CONSENT
Councilor Mboup moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Verdick seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick,
Afghan, Corrigan, Wendland and Mboup voting `aye', (6-0).
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
6.2 Approve a Contract Award for 9-1-1 Phone and Mapping Equipment Replacement.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Motorola Solutions,
Inc., for 9-1-1 Phone and Mapping Equipment Replacement, for $543,065.33.
This item will be considered at the January 2, 2024, meeting.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
8.1 Ordinance 2943, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Establishing the Lake
Oswego Vertical Housing Development Zone at the North Anchor Site (PP 23-
0006).
Erik Olson, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the Council Report on Ordinance
2943, and provided background on Vertical Housing Tax Exemptions, Vertical Housing
Development Zones (VHDZ), the North Anchor redevelopment site, and the proposed VHDZ
pilot program in North Anchor. As required by the State, Lake Oswego provided notice to the
nine taxing districts impacted by the VHDZ, but no district had opted out. In addition, though
State rules required the City to consider the potential for displacement of households within a
proposed VHDZ before designation, the four tax lots located within the proposed zone were
currently developed with existing vacant commercial structures. Since there were no existing
residences within the area, Staff found no displacement risk. A review of the fiscal impact of the
proposal found the construction of North Anchor would ultimately increase the City's tax
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8
December 19, 2023
revenue, particularly when the residential portion of the property was added to the tax rolls
following the initial 10-year period. In the interim, the City would collect revenue from the
commercial portion of the project. Staff recommended the City Council approve the ordinance,
which was consistent with Council goals to support business investment and job creation, to
ensure North Anchor Development stayed on track, and to help facilitate the development of 67
housing units in the downtown core, eight of which would be affordable to those earning 80
percent of area median income.
Mayor Buck commented that he and the City's Redevelopment Manager, Sidaro Sin, had met
with two of the impacted taxing districts, the School District and the County, to present the
project and answer questions. Neither district opted out of the proposed VHDZ, which he
believed was because the City had a specific project in mind for an area with known
redevelopment difficulties. It was better to get something off the ground than to see it sitting
vacant and being a nuisance year after year. The taxing districts may not have had the same
response if the City had approached them without a tangible project and demonstrated need. It
was worth pointing out, too, that the City had always heavily subsidized other redevelopment
projects, such as Lake View Village and Windward. Downtown was a difficult area to construct
in because of the cost, going underground, and the train. While this was a new program, the
City forming partnerships to make development happen was nothing new.
Councilor Wendland stated that the City's partner in North Anchor, Urban Development
Partners (UD+P), had stepped up to the table and the VHDZ was one component of several the
company had worked on to make the project economically viable.
Councilor Verdick moved to enact Ordinance 2943. Councilor Wendland seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Verdick,
Afghan, Corrigan, Wendland and Mboup voting `aye', (6-0).
9. STUDY SESSION
9.1 McVey I Stafford Road Corridor Study on Transportation Options.
Erica Rooney, City Engineer I Public Works Director, introduced project team members
Senior Associate Engineer Will Farley, and Associate Engineer Stefan Broadus. She noted this
evening's work session presented ideas that were not set in stone but provided a starting point
to find a cohesive idea for how to move forward with the corridor.
Stefan Broadus, Associate Engineer, presented the Council Report via PowerPoint and
provided a summary of the McVey-Stafford corridor, previous Council direction, existing
conditions, public involvement, proposed concepts, implementation and next steps.
Councilors supported the project, but expressed concern about the overall cost, how the project
fit into current Transportation System Plan (TSP) priorities and inquired of Staff whether there
was a way to simplify the plan or pursue options other than the segments shown in the report.
Staff addressed clarifying questions from Councilors as follows:
• Staff believed the signal modifications proposed to improve the efficiency of the
intersections and/or the access management to make turn movements and access onto
McVey/Stafford more predictable would result in immediate reduced stress and an easier life
for commuters.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8
December 19, 2023
• Many of the remedies around intersections were designed so drivers could turn quickly and
more efficiently, improving the flow of traffic behind them. For example, a driver trying to turn
left from McVey onto Cornell usually had to wait for a line of cars, but a signal improvement
would ensure the driver had a moment to turn left without the wait and then drivers behind
them would be able to flow more efficiently. Pedestrians could then cross at a signal during
their green time; adding some expectation to the traffic could improve flow for everybody.
• It was possible the project could create a bottle neck at one end of State Street because that
was a state highway with through traffic on the other approaches as well. That bottleneck
could lead to some backup on McVey. It was possible Overlook, and the area towards the
roundabout on the south side could experience some congestion as well.
• There was an opportunity to do the project in phases as shown in the Council Report under
interim projects. The ultimate project could be broken up geographically into a north
segment and a south segment, though Staff had not analyzed that specific possibility.
• The project could not be broken into block-by-block pieces because of the stormwater
component. The drawings in the Council Report did not show the stormwater
component; that element was a linear function that needed to be accommodated. While
the project could not be broken up into 10 sections, two or three sections were possible.
The $40 million cost did not include underground utilities.
• Staff emphasized that limiting stranded value or putting a cost into any project that would not
survive the ultimate construction would be a design consideration of any interim project the
City might pursue. Instead, design considerations would include a solution or combination of
solutions to reduce the total $40 million, though it was too early to tell what percentage of
the overall project would be made up from interim investments.
• The City's TSP had a few hundred projects on it, and it was the Council's job to take the
information brought to them and set the goals and priorities for the City. Several years ago,
pavement management was a priority and that was where the biggest percentage of the
City's street fund went to. A few years ago, the shift was towards pedestrian pathway
improvements, most specifically to address the needs of youth and schools, so the City was
focusing on those pathways near schools. The Report before Council was the outcome of a
corridor study project identified in the TSP. Staff had started the process and now it had to
be weighed against all the other needs in Lake Oswego.
• Urgency better described things which did exist and had failed. While the corridor was
not a great facility, it was not broken and so prioritization was more difficult. Staff looked
to the Council to determine where the project fit amongst pedestrian and pavement
improvements since there were many needs in the city but not enough funding.
• The project was something Council should discuss and provide direction to Staff. After
the project was put into the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and the next TSP
update, Staff would have more specific components to highlight and then Council could
have more conversation about priorities. after which Council should discuss the project
and provide direction to Staff.
• The projects would not disrupt the current path of the TSP. The city was a quarter of the way
through the first biennium, so the direction of work was set. Some of the projects could be
put in the unfunded category when the next CIP was developed. If the Council's goals
changed this January and the following January, and it determined McVey was more
important than pedestrian facilities for schools, then that was the direction Staff would take.
• Staff wanted to put the project into the CIP to provide more specifics than what the CIP
included now, which was the McVey-Stafford Corridor Study. The project would then be
included in the updated TSP as well.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8
December 19, 2023
• Barriers between cars and cyclists could cause issues with keeping the bike lane clean.
However, the barrier shown between the cycle lanes and the vehicular lanes was one
potential design solution. Another possibility was to forgo a barrier and the horizontal
separation would act as a barrier by itself. The calm candle sticks shown in the Report were
there to highlight the fact that there is a separation, but what that would look like in the final
design was still to be determined. Staff probably would not recommend them for
maintenance reasons.
• Pedestrian crossings from the south side could be considered further into design. The goal
would be to allow someone to continue to travel on the side of the road they are already on,
as opposed to crossing the road. There were a couple of other design solutions at City's
disposal, including acquiring additional right of way in order to incorporate facilities, or
merging the pedestrian and bicycle facilities into some sort of shared use path.
• The City could try to compete for funding at the State level, but historically Lake Oswego
had not competed well for safety funding because there were not many accidents; it was a
good problem to have but it limited sources of outside funding. Another resource was the
Street Maintenance Fee, which the Council had voted to increase a year and a half ago.
Implemented in July of 2023, the fee was meant to help pay for the Pedestrian Pathway
Program. Previously, the City had discussed bonds, gas tax, and other things that could
provide more funding options but at the time the only direction Council wished to take was to
increase the Street Maintenance Fee.
• If the City wished to prioritize pedestrian safety and planned to break the project into
segments, then it could look to the area between South Shore Boulevard and State Street
since other areas of the corridor had pathways and pedestrian facilities.
• The proposed plan showed fitting improvements within the existing right of way. Based on
the preliminary concepts, there was no expected right of way acquisition.
• The project would require the City to manage stormwater created through the addition of
impervious surface area.
• Staff understood Council wished the project to be broken up into three plans: Plan A would
show the project end-to-end as a $40 million project. Plan B would cut the plan up into two
segments to make it more financially feasible. Plan C could be interim projects.
• Community feedback acknowledged that traveling the corridor longitudinally was a
challenge, but even more so the community expressed concerns regarding crossing the
road from one neighborhood into another. With that feedback in mind, many of the interim
projects, such as crossing estimates, were a relatively minor investment of $50,000 to
$150,000, compared to the total $40 million. For that minor investment, the City would be
addressing one of the biggest feedback themes and there was little risk of sunken costs.
• To predict trends, Staff would look at origin and destination, where origin was housing
and destination was schools, restaurants, and grocery stores. The plan addressed some
of those, such as South Shore, with signalized intersections, but there were a couple of
other intersections identified where a crossing improvement could make a big difference.
• Crossing improvements could be as simple as providing a Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB). For $1 million, the City could make four crossing improvements at the
intersections with Lake Front, Cornell, Laurel, and Patton which would be appreciated by
residents right away and would not necessarily be hard to implement. RRFB might be an
effective starting point. The crossings would not address the longitudinal challenges for
pedestrians but would certainly help how hard it was to cross currently.
• Curb bulb-outs with RRFB would be installed at Bergis Road as part of the Lake Oswego
Recreational and Aquatic Facility (LORAC) project.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8
December 19, 2023
• The access management proposals discussed where the City wished to close or consolidate
vehicle access. North of South Shore Boulevard, there were a few accesses and good street
spacing with other connectivity. It was possible to close access from one street since
vehicles could gain access from one street over. Limiting access allowed traffic to move
more efficiently because turning points were consolidated.
Mayor Buck appreciated the information about RRFBs having a large impact for fewer dollars.
Cost wise, the project cost more than the entire Boone's Ferry Road project, which required an
Urban Renewal District, a general obligation bond, state funding, and two decades to complete.
He favored getting Plan C projects onto the CIP and then onto the priority list as the City
progressed, though at some point a decision had to be made about what could be funded on the
big project; it was one of the corridors impacted by diversion and a candidate for mitigation from
ODOT because now there would be infrastructure deficiencies to point to, but it was possible
ODOT would only fund signal modifications. The City should continue to advocate for this
project, whether through revenue sharing or conversation with State, because it was a critical
corridor and lacked facilities for people in nearby neighborhoods to access George Rogers Park
and the town's commercial area.
Councilor Wendland asked if the money allocated towards the study had been spent. City
Manager Martha Bennett said the study was funded with ARPA dollars. Any monies remaining
would go to Lakeview Boulevard. Staff would return to Council with the exact cost of the study.
Director Rooney added the contract was expended, but that may not represent all the funds.
10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Mayor Buck thanked Councilor Verdick for serving as the 2023 Council President. Earlier in the
day, some Councilors hosted the Councilor General of Japan who was visiting the 24 cities in
Oregon that had sister city relationships with cities in Japan. Lake Oswego would work with his
office to reinvigorate its relationship with sister city Yoshikawa.
The Mayor, with Councilors Corrigan, Mboup, and Verdick had attended the ribbon cutting for
the Habitat project. About 50 kids were expected to live in the 23-townhome project, which
would take about a year to a year and a half to complete.
A subcommittee of the Legislature was hearing feedback on tolling through a series of three
public meetings: one in Multnomah, one in Wilsonville, and one in Gladstone. Lake Oswego was
invited to present at the Wilsonville meeting. Mr. Farley had prepared a letter specific to the
topic covered while Mayor Buck's testimony included general comments about the tolling
program and comprehensive transportation funding.
The City Council was soliciting feedback for its goals. Boards and commissions were preparing
a summary of three things they had done in the past year and three topics they would like the
Council to focus on in the upcoming year.
11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
City Manager Bennett advised the City would be closed Monday, December 25 and the
following Monday. Materials for goal setting would be sent to the Council the first week in
January; materials would include comments already submitted to City Recorder Kari Linder.
Feedback thus far included comments regarding Luscher Farm and pedestrian safety.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8
December 19, 2023
Councilors would be sent department head recommendations, boards and commission
materials, and public comments for feedback early in January.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Lake Oswego City Council will meet under authority of
ORS 192.660 (2)(h) Consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a
public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed;
(i) Review and evaluate the employment related performance of the chief
executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member
who does not request an open hearing; and (f) Consider records that are exempt
by law from public inspection.
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney, read the parameters of the Executive Session.
The City Council met in Executive Session from 4:59 p.m. to 7:19 p.m.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kari Linder, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on {insert approval date}.
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8
December 19, 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
o s�
y.. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
January 2, 2024
ORFGo�'
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. on Tuesday,
January 2, 2024. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-
person in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 380 A Avenue.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Afghan, Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, Rapf, and
Corrigan
Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari
Linder, City Recorder; Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development
Director; Madison Thesing, Assistant to the City Manager; Kyra
Haggart, Project Manager, Parks Department; Kim Vermillion,
Administrative Assistant
Others Present: Matt Evans, Chamber of Commerce; Jason Morado, ETC Institute (via
video conferencing); Matt Hastig, MIG (via video conferencing)
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Mayor Buck moved to elect Councilor Mboup for the Lake Oswego 2024 Council
President. Councilor Rapf seconded the motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors
Corrigan, Wendland, Mboup, Verdick, Rapf, and Afghan voting `aye.' (7-0).
5. PRESENTATIONS
5.1 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Proclamation.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 9
January 2, 2024
Mayor Buck declared January 15, 2024, as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the City of Lake
Oswego. The full text of the Proclamation was available on the Council's website. The
community was invited to attend the MLK Day Celebration at the Lake Oswego High School
auditorium on Sunday, January 14, at 2 p.m.
5.2 Awards for the 2023 Unsung Heroes
Mayor Buck noted the City was in its 23rd year of celebrating selfless service with the Unsung
Heroes Award. Over the years, the award has recognized 85 outstanding volunteers for their
impactful, behind-the-scenes efforts that have helped make Lake Oswego a wonderful place.
The 2023 Awards were presented to:
• Jan Rimerman was honored in absentia for her work as an active volunteer with the Festival
of the Arts and Lake Oswego Library. Ms. Rimerman curated shows at the Lakewood Center
Festival of the Arts and Denton Gallery and helped to coordinate the art show portion of the
Lake Oswego Reads program, including recruiting artists and facilitating a traveling art
exhibition exhibit of art to nine libraries across the state. In a written statement, Ms.
Rimerman shared her impactful volunteer experience assisting with the Rain Spark Gallery
10th Annual Lake Oswego Community Treasure Hunt.
• Charles Aubin was recognized for his 20 years of volunteer service to Parks and Recreation
events, as well as service to the Meals on Wheels Program, Oswego Arts Festival, local
food pantry, and service to multiple organizations outside Lake Oswego, including Tryon
Creek State Park, Tualatin River Keepers, Portland Audubon Society, and the Oregon
Humane Society. Mr. Aubin shared that the most rewarding experiences he had were at the
Adult Community Center. Serving there was a rewarding and fun activity.
• Ophilia Lu was the youngest recipient of the 2023 Unsung Heroes Awards and was
recognized for 250 hours of volunteer time to the Chinese Youth and Women Development
Organization, and her work to foster stronger connection between that organization and
local entities. Ms. Lu, a junior at Lake Oswego High School, also served as a member of the
City's Youth Leadership Council, and volunteered with Vision Envoy, a youth run branch of
the Lions Club. Ms. Lu commented that one of her most rewarding volunteer experiences
was assisting at the Fourth of July Pancake Breakfast.
Mayor Buck thanked those who served on the selection committee and everyone who
nominated the Unsung Heroes.
5.3 Chamber of Commerce Annual Report
Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director, stated that December 2023
concluded the first year of a three-year contract between Lake Oswego and the Chamber of
Commerce. The contract aimed to strengthen the Lake Oswego business community through
community partnerships, education and training, and marketing to business and visitor
prospects. The Chamber had a scope of work in three main areas: business information
collection and dissemination; business education and training; and business outreach and
engagement. This evening's presentation by the Chamber would highlight the organization's
accomplishments over the past year and share data and information collected.
Matt Evans, Economic and Business Research Analyst, Lake Oswego Chamber of
Commerce, presented the Chamber's report, providing data on the size, number, type and
location of businesses in Lake Oswego, and summarizing the information contained in the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9
January 2, 2024
Council packet, which included updates about business investment and job creation,
businesses education and training, outreach and engagement. As City Councilors went through
the City Satisfaction Survey, they might observe areas that could be added for the Chamber and
City to consider as part of the 2024 grant work, along with any additional areas of focus under
the 2024 agreement. The Chamber looked forward to continuing its partnership with the City.
Councilors thanked Mr. Evans for the presentation and expressed gratitude for the Chamber's
partnership with the City and all the Chamber did to support local businesses. Councilors
expressed a desire to make the Chamber's business training programs, some of which had a
cost, accessible to more businesses.
Mr. Evans and Director Numanoglu addressed clarifying questions from Councilors as follows:
• The survey referenced in the report asked businesses if they had any contact with the City,
aside from applying for a business license, and the responses were very positive. People
felt like the City listened when they came forward with a problem, and Staff worked with
people to solve problems. The survey helped identify a sign problem a member on Boone's
Ferry road was having. The Chamber worked with the Planning Department to determine
the process to get the sign approved and installed. That situation would not have happened
if the Chamber had not done the contracted work on behalf of the City.
• For 2024, the Chamber planned to look more closely at the problems established
businesses may face that a new owner may not, and how to provide training in those areas
to help businesses get through those problems.
• The Chamber was grateful to continue working with the City under the contract, however Mr.
Evans' time was limited by the amount of money available to provide for his salary under the
contract. It would be wonderful if the Chamber had more Staff and resources, especially
around outreach. The Chamber would like to have more one-on-one discussions with
businesses around Lake Oswego to find out about what problems businesses were having.
• The Chamber wished to know how it could help the City as it did with the recent Stormwater
Inspection Program. The Chamber hosted meetings with local businesses to help them
understand the complex program and gave businesses the opportunity to talk with City Staff.
Through that process, the Chamber discovered the program could use more publicity so
businesses understood what would happen under the program and which businesses would
and would not be affected.
• The Chamber had great communication with Staff and felt free to ask questions of anyone at
any time. They would like to see more frequent communication all the way around.
• The Chamber tried to emphasize the positive with ribbon cuttings and business openings for
members as well as nonmembers.
• The City was in the process of renewing the contract with the Chamber for 2024. The scope
of work under the contract would not change. While it followed the economic development
strategy and plan that did not mean the Chamber was limited to just that work. The contract
would not be expanded if the City or the Chamber provided support to one another
throughout the year, but the City would provide assistance where it could.
• Many businesses and organizations had had a difficult four to five years. Credit for the
Chamber's success and strength through that time was due to the Chamber's Board and its
CEO Liz Hartman for the tremendous amount of smart work during that period to maintain a
presence.
Mayor Buck commented that people came to Lake Oswego from all over the region, and there
was an opportunity to work together to promote businesses. Tourism meant a lot to the local
economy, not just heads in beds, but also daily visitors. The City had disbanded the Tourism
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9
January 2, 2024
Advisory Board this year, so there may be an opportunity to work with the Chamber to put
tourism dollars to good work and tell a positive story about Lake Oswego. Mr. Evans responded
that part of his charge was the Visitors Bureau, which was a small effort at the moment, but the
Chamber was thinking about ways to bring more visitors to Lake Oswego. Plans were underway
for a Lake Grove Wine Walk in May, which would be advertised outside the area. The event, an
expansion of the event held downtown in the fall, would feature only Oregon wines, and the
Chamber was hoping to get people in for overnight stays.
5.4 2023 Community Survey Results
Ms. Thesing introduced the team from the City's consultant, ETC Research, which was
contracted by the City to conduct a statistical valid survey to measure satisfaction with the City's
programs and services and gauge the community's support for potential policy initiatives. The
survey was intended to be a snapshot of where the City was today, where it could improve, and
a roadmap of where the City may want to go next. The survey was the second with ETC and
marked the first year the City could benchmark against its survey from 2021. Staff did not
request any Council action; the presentation was meant to provide insights and information,
especially leading into the Council's goal-setting session.
Jason Morado, Director of Community Research, ETC Institute, presented the Council
Report via PowerPoint and highlighted the purpose and methodology of the survey and key
findings, as well as a summary of results.
Councilors found the results of the survey, in which 97 percent of respondents reported feeling
that Lake Oswego was an excellent or good place to live, reflected the work of City Staff and the
goals the City Council had chosen to emphasize. They asked how to reach the people who did
not feel satisfied with the City, and whether questions should be changed in the next survey to
provide more specificity to areas of concern identified by respondents, such as climate change.
Mr. Morado and Staff addressed clarifying questions from Councilors as follows:
• About 40 percent of respondents owned their own business, worked from home, or worked
in Lake Oswego while 44 percent commuted to work outside of the city. It was not clear
whether those numbers were like the demographics collected two years ago, but they may
be consistent.
• The results presented were for the recently closed, statistically valid survey. The publicly
accessible portion of the survey was being launched and promoted in Hello LO and the LO
Down, so there would be a second batch of survey results from the general population opt-in
to compare to the statistically valid survey.
• In 2021, the statistically valid survey had 609 respondents and the publicly accessibly
portion had more than 400 respondents for a total sample of just over 1,000.
• The survey was very thorough and was a mix of standard questions ETC asked in other
communities across the country, along with customized questions specific to Lake Oswego,
which was typical of how surveys were set up. ETC could not think of questions that were
missing, but that could be kept in mind for the next survey. However, this survey was at its
limit for the number of questions that could be asked. If new questions were added, other
questions of a similar type would need to be removed.
• The survey questions did have a range of specificities and Council mapped the priorities
indicated against existing goals. In terms of climate action, Council had an existing Climate
Action Plan, and the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) made recommendations to Council
about priorities in the Climate Action Plan. The Council needed to decide whether those
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9
January 2, 2024
recommendations were responsive to the Community Survey Results, which were
generalized. The Council should determine what priorities within its adopted plan should be
prioritized based on the survey results.
• The Community Survey was a public opinion survey meant to give the City a sense of what
people cared about. A real dialogue with the community about climate change, the library, or
bonds for streets or the fire station, would involve more public education. The questions on
the survey were informed by where people were right now and not what the City had done to
educate the public about a topic.
• The survey elicited residents' perceptions and for some issues, such as climate change,
at a very high level. The next survey could ask more specific questions about climate
change if that was considered more important than another topic. There were times
when entire surveys were about one topic, such as surveys for Parks and Recreation
Departments that asked detailed questions about different types of programs and
facilities. For the purpose of this survey, the questions about climate change were
designed to a high level, general perception. The survey could always go more in depth
on any question, but then part of the survey would have to be in areas that were not as
important to learn about.
• In the past six to eight months, the cities surveyed by ETC overall had a decrease in
satisfaction compared to two to three years ago, which made the increase in satisfaction
results for Lake Oswego impressive.
• ETC would put together a list of other high-performing communities with similar
characteristics and concerns for benchmarking and best practices purposes.
Councilor Wendland suggested that the City create a definitive plan with its partners at the
Lake Oswego School District to share the good survey results to attract young families to the
city. The statistics showed that Lake Oswego was growing older, so the City should do what it
could to bolster its marketing.
Councilor Rapf noted that people's first connection to the city was through commerce, so
Council should continue to focus on commerce. The way to reach the few people who were not
quite satisfied and create a positive impact on individual members of the community was right
outside the front door: streets, roadways, pathways, sidewalks. Page 38 of the report indicated
residents would prefer the City put its capital resources toward streets, roads, and pathways.
Mayor Buck commented that all the areas of significant satisfaction increase since 2021 were
centered around Council goals and the work the City had been doing in the areas of public
safety, the intersection of public safety and behavior health, economic development, social
services, and the promotion of equity and climate change. The results spoke to the efficacy of
the work Council was doing in those areas. The Council had chosen areas that resulted in a
positive response from the community, and it communicated its goals well.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Gary Vuchinich testified that on November 6, an 8-inch waterline owned by the City broke and
flooded his home resulting in a $32,000 cleanup bill and an estimated restoration cost between
$120,000 and $130,000. The City had not accepted responsibility for the damage, and Mr.
Vuchinich was retired and did not expect the expense. He expected the City to take
responsibility. One hidden danger of living in Lake Oswego lurked 4.5 to 5 feet underground: the
City's water system. In his area, the water system was 54 years old, and the neighborhood had
experienced previous waterline breaks in 2013 and 2019. He was not sure what to do if the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9
January 2, 2024
water line broke again because the City had given him no assurances that the water line was
safe other than saying the lines usually lasted 80 to 100 years. The employee who came out to
supervise the repair of the November break shared that he dealt with two water line breaks per
month. Mr. Vuchinich asked for the Council to accept responsibility. If they did not, why would
anyone want to live, or build, or conduct business in the city knowing how bad the infrastructure
was? This could happen to all the members of the Council. All the Councilors lived in Lake
Oswego and could suffer the same damage. Would they want the City to walk away, saying the
City was not negligent and not responsible for the damage?
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.1 Approve a Contract Award for 9-1-1 Phone and Mapping Equipment Replacement.
Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Motorola Solutions,
Inc., for 9-1-1 Phone and Mapping Equipment Replacement, for $579,966.33.
7.2 Resolution 24-01, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving the Council Liaison and Committee Assignments for 2024.
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-01.
END CONSENT
Councilor Rapf moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Corrigan seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan,
Wendland, Verdick, Mboup, Rapf, and Corrigan voting `aye,' (7-0).
8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
9. CONSENT AGENDA— Councilors Only
9.1 Resolution 24-04, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving an Appointment to the Library Advisory Board.
Councilor Wendland moved to adopt Resolution 24-04. Councilor Rapf seconded the
motion.
A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Councilors Afghan, Wendland,
Verdick, Mboup, Rapf, Corrigan voting `aye,' (6-0-1).
Council took a ten-minute recess.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9
January 2, 2024
10. STUDY SESSION
10.1 Parks 2040 Project Update.
Kyra Haggart, Project Manager, Parks and Recreation, introduced the City's consultant from
MIG and noted the preliminary results of the citywide survey demonstrated residents'
satisfaction with the Parks and Recreation Department. High satisfaction levels were achieved
through forward-thinking and thoughtful, long-range Parks and Recreation System Planning.
Matt Hastig, MIG, presented the report via PowerPoint and summarized the status of the Parks
2040 process, key takeaways from community engagement, a proposed revised classification
system for Parks and Recreation facilities, mapping related to access and proximity as well as
index equity mapping to demographic gaps, and reviewed strategic framework elements and
next steps.
Mr. Hastig and Staff addressed clarifying questions from Councilors as follows:
• The results presented represented the statistically valid survey, though there was not a lot of
difference between the results of the two survey components. MIG had compiled a report
that compared the results from the two components of the survey and found that the
differences were between one to five percent, though a few were greater. Most often, the
difference was within the margin of error for the statistically valid survey.
• The plan included a three-pronged needs assessment for facilities, recreation amenities or
programs, and facilities maintenance and operations. The maintenance and operations
assessment did not include the Lake Oswego Recreation and Aquatic Center (LORAC)
because MIG did not have data regarding how the City planned to maintain that facility. MIG
could look at what other jurisdictions did in terms of maintenance level for those types of
facilities, but in general the report included what the City was already doing and how it could
continue to enhance and improve.
• The report did include staffing and associated costs for new facilities, such as the
LORAC.
• A maintenance cost projection for the LORAC had been completed, but it was not
encapsulated in the Park Plan 2040; it was more of a one-off operational plan and
projection. The City used the firm Ballard and King to prepare a projection of the
maintenance costs for the LORAC. That projection was based on similar facilities throughout
the United States. The IGA with the School District called for the City to analyze actual
numbers after two years of operations and make any adjustments to the IGA or return to
Council for adjustments to resources.
• Staff could ensure there was a more obvious connection between the operations plan for
LORAC and the Parks Plan 2040. The LORAC operational plan and forecast could be
added to the Parks Plan in an appendix for that specific facility.
• Staff believed there was always room for improvement in public engagement, and only one-
third of the planned public engagement for the plan had been undertaken. The bulk of
community engagement would take place over the next year, when the City would begin to
seek specific recommendations to help meet the needs of marginalized communities. Staff
had done a good job of trying to initiate those relationships in order to garner feedback and
earn trust.
• The term "access to essential services" came out of the Parks Plan 2025; the plan that
guided the City's Parks and Recreation Department since its adoption in 2012. The term
sought to identify the services people needed within walking distance of their home such as
places to exercise and for children to play, quick access to playgrounds, and access to
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9
January 2, 2024
nature. Trail connectivity was added as a new essential service based on feedback Staff
heard via outreach. The term meant the key parts of parks and recreation facilities that
people wanted to access quickly.
• Staff had heard from parents about the need for more playgrounds and for more inclusive
playgrounds that offered universal play for children of all abilities.
• Many parks were a combination of classifications. The forced choice questions on the
survey were intended to get at people's priorities. The survey results showed 43 percent of
respondents wanted access to nature, and 41 percent want to conserve nature, which Staff
understood to mean the City needed to be careful in how those two priorities were balanced.
• The benefit of having the different categories was in benchmarking Lake Oswego to other
communities. The 2025 classification made it difficult for Staff to benchmark externally, and
the new classifications were simpler and more traditional.
Councilor Wendland stated that out of 7,982 acres, only .001 was available for parks. A goal of
a park within '/4 mile or a 10-minute walk was not achievable if no land was available for parks.
The City must be careful about its messaging and not overpromise. In addition, some people did
not feel parks were an essential service. What Staff described as access to essential services
was a good explanation of the resident's desires to be able to exercise and have a place for kids
to play. The city had a great parks system, but there were opportunities for more playgrounds
which were an important element in attracting young families to Lake Oswego.
• Mr. Hastig noted Parks Plan 2025 identified geographical gaps in parks service and found
most areas of the city were walkable to parks, though some places, especially
unincorporated areas, did have some gaps. But walking to parks did not necessarily mean
the park had the benefit the community was looking for. Being able to identify the four
essential services and having the classification would help Staff determine other types of
gaps and look in more detail at how the parks function specifically to what the desires of the
community were.
11. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Councilor Afghan stated that he and Assistant City Manager Phelan teamed up to educate
several homeowner and neighborhood associations about the Emergency Preparedness Plan
and found some big gaps. Tomorrow night, they would meet with the Mountain Park
Homeowner Association, which had the largest population to educate them on easy ways to get
their residents to the next level of emergency preparedness.
Mayor Buck said new Council Boards and Commissions liaison assignments had been made
and meetings started in January.
12. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
City Manager Bennett reminded the packet of prework for Council's goal-setting session would
come out on Friday. Councilors were asked to return the packet on January 16. The packet
included the report on last year's goals, community input, recommendations from the executive
team, and reports from the boards and commission on their top thoughts for the Council. She
reminded that Council's diet was 15 to 18 initiatives for next year, noting likely more than half
were carried over being such large, multi-year initiatives that prompted further projects and
plans. She also reminded the Boards and Commissions Summit would take place on January
11 at the Adult Community Center (ACC).
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9
January 2, 2024
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kari Linder, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on {insert approval date}.
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9
January 2, 2024
8.1
. t'p` E COUNCIL REPORT
Alig r o
OREGO�
Subject: Resolution 24-06, Approving the Appointment of Alternates to Fill Vacancies on the
Transportation Advisory Board and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Advisory Board
Meeting Date: February 6, 2024 Staff Member: Quin Brunner, Management Analyst
Report Date: January 18, 2024 Department: City Manager's Office
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation
❑ Motion ❑ Approval
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial
❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded
❑X Resolution ❑X Not Applicable
I ❑ Information Only Comments:
❑ Council Direction
❑X Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 24-06.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 24-06.
Project/ Issue Relates To:
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑S Not Applicable
BACKGROUND
On Sunday, January 7, 2024, Cory Misley, a member of the Transportation Advisory Board,
submitted his letter of resignation.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, Ashley Foster, a member of the DEI Advisory Board, submitted
her letter of resignation.
DISCUSSION
On June 27, 2023, the City Council appointed Michele DeBuhr to a one-year term as an
Alternate to the Transportation Advisory Board, serving through June 30, 2024. With the
Respect. Excel'ence. Trust. Service,
503-675-2543 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Page 2
vacancy on the board due to Cory Misley's resignation, Mayor Buck appoints Michele DeBuhr to
fill the remainder of Cory Misley's term through June 30, 2026, subject to the approval of the
City Councilors.
On June 27, 2023, the City Council appointed Chris Williams to a one-year term as an Alternate
to the DEI Advisory Board, serving through June 30, 2024. With the vacancy on the board due
to Ashley Foster's resignation, Mayor Buck appoints Chris Williams to fill the remainder of
Ashley Foster's term through June 30, 2024, subject to the approval of the City Councilors.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 24-06.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution 24-06.
Respect. Excel'ence. Trust. Service.
503-675-2543 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 24-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILORS OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT
OF ALTERNATES TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AND THE DIVERSITY, EQUITY& INCLUSION
ADVISORY BOARD.
WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 27, 2023, appointed Michele DeBuhr to serve as an alternate to the
Transportation Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, Transportation Advisory Board member Cory Misley submitted a letter of resignation on January 7,
2024; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor appointed Michele DeBuhr to fill the remainder of Cory Misley's term, subject to
Council approval, pursuant to Section 19 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 27, 2023, appointed Chris Williams to serve as an alternate to the DEI
Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, DEI Advisory Board member Ashley Foster submitted a letter of resignation on January 9, 2024;
and
WHEREAS, the Mayor appointed Chris Williams to fill the remainder of Ashley Foster's term, subject to Council
approval, pursuant to Section 19 of the City Charter;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego approve the Mayor's
appointment of Michele DeBuhr to serve the remainder of Cory Misley's term on the Transportation Advisory
Board through June 30, 2026 and Chris Williams to serve the remainder of Ashley Foster's term on the DEI
Advisory Board through June 30, 2024.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and adopted by the City Councilors of the City of
Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of February, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kari Linder, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney
9.1
COUNCIL REPORT
von. o
OREGO�
Subject: AP 23-03, Appeal of the Development Review Commission's (DRC) Approval of Type II
Tree Removal Application 499-23-001116-TREE at 2800 Wembley Park Road.
Meeting Date: February 6, 2024 Staff Member: Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner
Report Date: January 23, 2024 Department: Planning and Building Services
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation
❑x Motion ❑x Approval
❑x Public Hearing ❑ Denial
❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded
❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable
❑ Information Only Comments:
❑ Council Direction
❑ Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Per Development Review Commission ("DRC" or "Commission")
decision, approval of Tree Removal Application 499-23-001116-TREE.
Recommended Language for Motion (Three Options, depending on whether or not the
Council agrees with the Commission's Decision, and, based on City Attorney
recommendation, whether additional findings are necessary):
1. Option 1 (with City Attorney recommendation to adopt Findings): Affirm the
Commission's decision to approve the tree removal application 499-23-001116-TREE,
with conditions of approval, and adopt findings, conclusions, and order (Attachment 1);
or
2. Option 2:Tentatively affirm the Commission's decision to approve the tree removal
application 499-23-001116-TREE, with conditions of approval; or
3. Option 3:Tentatively reverse the Commission's decision and deny the tree removal
application 499-23-001116-TREE.
Motions 2 or 3 should include: "and direct staff to present findings, conclusions, and an order
finalizing the Council's tentative decision on February 20, 2024."
Respect. Excel'ence. Trust. Service,
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Applicant/Owner Renaissance Homes, LLC applied to remove 12 trees (10 for construction of a
new dwelling and two for landscaping). Staff tentatively approved the removal of the trees on
October 12, 2023. A request for a hearing (Exhibit A-001) was timely filed on October 19, 2023.
The Development Review Commission (Commission) held a public hearing on November 20,
2023 and tentatively approved the application. The Commission's Findings, Conclusion and
Order was approved on December 4, 2023 (Exhibit B-001).
On December 14, 2023, Erin Williams timely filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) the
Commission's decision to the City Council (Exhibit A-002).
COUNCIL HEARING PROCEDURE
Pursuant to LOC 55.02.085(4), the hearing before City Council shall be on the record established
before the Commission, only issues raised before the Commission may be raised to the Council,
and only persons who appeared before the Commission orally or in writing may testify. The
record consists of the Commission's findings, conclusions, and order, minutes of the
Commission meetings, and the record before the Commission, including the application
materials, staff reports, and testimony. The entire record can be viewed and downloaded at the
project webpage/ Public Record of File, or at www.lakeoswego.city (enter "AP 23-03" in the
search box at the top right of the home page).
The Council members will be individually polled prior to the public hearing to declare whether
they need to make a declaration of ex parte contact (avoid if possible), actual or potential
financial conflict of interest, or bias (prejudgment; not able base decision on applicable criteria
and evidence in Record). Please notify City Attorney to assist in declaration, if needed.
DISCUSSION
Approval or denial of the application is based on the criteria and the evidence in the record: if
the evidence in the record shows that the criteria are met, the application must be approved; if
the evidence is insufficient to show that the criteria are met, the application must be denied.
The Commission's Findings, Conclusion, and Order (Exhibit B-001) and incorporated November
10, 2022, Staff Report (Exhibit D-001), provides detailed findings for each of the applicable
approval criteria.
Appealed Issues
Appellant raises the following issues for the City Council's consideration in the NITA (Exhibit A-
002). Appellant's argument has been summarized from the NITA. Staff's responses, including
the Commission's findings, follows. The Appellant contends that the decision by the
Commission to approve the application was in error because:
a.) The Commission incorrectly determined that the proposed removals would not
have a significant impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood;
b.) Applicant failed to prove that no reasonable alternatives[to removal]exist that
allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone;
c.) ORS 197.307 does not apply; and
Page 3
d.) Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed removals comply with the
code.
Staff Response:
a.) LOC 55.02.080(3); Significant Negative Impact on the Character or Aesthetics of the
Neighborhood
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character or
aesthetics of the neighborhood. This standard is met when removal of the tree(s) does not
involve:
(i) Subcriterion a "Significant Tree"
a. A significant tree[a healthy, noninvasive tree over 15 in. DBH that is considered
significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character, or the only
remaining tree on a property.];
For Criterion 3(a) "significant tree," only the subject trees that meet the first three elements
(healthy, noninvasive trees, over 15 inches in diameter) are then examined for the fourth
element of "significant to the neighborhood" based on the sub-elements of size, species, and
distinctive character, or the last remaining tree on the site.
Sub-Elements of Size, Species and Distinctive Character
Size: For a tree's size to be "significant" to the neighborhood, its absolute size without
comparison is irrelevant, but that the size needs to be examined in context of the
neighborhood's predominate range of sizes of trees. [AP 17-05, Commission Findings, pg. 41;
incorporated by reference in Council Findings for AP 19-07 (Renaissance Custom Homes), 20-01
(Roderick Family LLC), 20-08 (Renaissance Custom Homes), 22-03 and 22-04 (Renaissance
Custom Homes), and 22-06 (Gonyea / Miernicki)].
• Appellant's NITA:
"The Commission received testimony that the trees were significant because they were
tall...[and]...ignores evidence on the record submitted by commenters providing photographs
and descriptions of the size of the trees."
• Commission Finding:
The testimony [that they were tall, approximately 100 ft. tall] is not inconsistent with
Applicant's statement that "All trees on this application are visible from the street" (Exhibit F-
'There are numerous other Commission Findings after AP 17-05 that duplicate this finding.
Page 4
001, pg. 5)." In Exhibit B-001 pg. 2, the Commission concurred with the staff finding, which is
found in Exhibit D-001, pgs. 10-112.
o Staff Findings: "The arborist report lists the range of DBH measurements on the
property and adjacent property from 6" DBH to 43" DBH (Exhibit F-001, pgs. 10-
12).... Further, following an on-site visit and observation of the general
neighborhood surrounding the site, the City's contract arborist found the nine trees
are of average size or smaller relative to other trees in the neighborhood (Exhibit F-
002, pg. 1). ... [T]he nine trees reviewed for this sub-element are not significant to
the neighborhood due to size" (Exhibit D-001, pg. 11).
Species: For a tree species to be found "significant" to the neighborhood, it must require
examination of the neighborhood in which the specific tree is located and that "significance"
has been interpreted as a species not generally found in the neighborhood, or a rare tree
species within the neighborhood canopy, or contributes to defining the neighborhood character
and aesthetics. (See prior Findings cited under Size, above).
• Appellant's NITA:
"Ponderosa pine not being common to the neighborhood."
• Commission Finding:
The Commission incorporated the Staff Report findings. (Exhibit B-001, pg. 2.)
o Staff Findings: There are 3 Ponderosa Pine, 2 Scots Pine, and 1 Australian Pine out of
14 trees listed on Applicant's Type 2 Tree Removals. (Exhibit F-001, pg. 7). "Absent
evidence to the contrary, staff uses the on-site and neighboring property tree
populations as representative of trees in the neighborhood. ... The City's contract
arborist found that the nine trees requested for Type II removal are common species
and of average size relative to other trees in the neighborhood (Exhibit F-002, pg.
1)." (Exhibit B-001, pg. 11.)
Distinctive Character: For a tree to be "significant to the neighborhood due to ... distinctive
character" for this sub-element, it must be a tree that is:
➢ In a prominent location or uniquely visible and provide a defining characteristic of
the neighborhood, e.g., visibly unique foliage, color, or canopy and at a prominent
location, such as in a round-about entry to a neighborhood. [See Tercek (LU 21-
0044); Blue Palouse Properties, AP 17-05, DRC Findings; Monogram Custom Homes,
AP 18-01 DRC Findings, pgs. 3-4.]; or,
➢ Of horticultural quality that made the trees "of landmark importance," and the trees
were a sentinel to the neighborhood, providing a unique and irreplaceable element
in the neighborhood skyline. [Red Dog Investments, LLC (AP 20-02), Staff Report, pg.
8, Commission Findings, pg. 1, by incorporation]. [Staff Report, Exhibit D-001, pg.
12].
2 The Commission finding references page 13 of the Staff Report(D-001). That was the Commission's sub-
conclusion for Criterion 3(a).
Page 5
(See prior Findings cited under Size, above)
• Appellant's NITA:
"[T]his area of the neighborhood is distinctively heavily treed with Springbrook Park adjacent
and the removal of these trees will change the aesthetic from heavily treed to an open lot."
• Commission Finding:
The Commission incorporated the Staff Report findings. (Exhibit B-001, pg. 2.)
o Staff Findings: Trees are not distinctive from other trees, of average or smaller size,
and not in prominent location in the neighborhood (Exhibits D-003 and F-001, pg. 3).
"[N]one of the nine trees reviewed for this sub-element individually provide
distinctive character to the neighborhood." (Exhibit D-001, pg. 12.)
o Staff Comment: The effect of tree removal on the aesthetic of the lot is not a
criterion; the question is whether any of the subject trees are "significant to the
neighborhood because of its distinctive character."
Irrelevant(Non-Criteria) Basis of Appeal
• Appellant's NITA:
The trees proposed to be removed contribute to the lower temperatures in the Uplands
neighborhood, as an asserted "distinctive character" of the neighborhood.
• Commission Findings:
The Commission incorporated the Staff Report findings. (Exhibit B-001, pg. 2.)
o Staff Findings: Concerns regarding climate change, as well as loss of natural resources
and habitat (including the proximity to Springbrook Park), and loss of canopy cover
and noise buffers are not criteria for approval under LOC 55.02.080. See DRC
Findings, Conclusion and Order, pgs. 3-4, Rodman (AP 21-03), and the cases cited
therein (citing Roderick Family, LLC, AP 20-01, DRC Findings, pg. 9-10, Council
Findings, pg. 3; Renaissance Custom Homes, AP 19-07, DRC Findings, pg. 8; Council
Findings, pg. 2 (Healthy Ecosystems Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is not
applicable criteria under LOC 55.02.080)." (Exhibit D-001, pgs. 4-5.)
o Staff Comment: There is no evidence in the record to document that Uplands
Neighborhood has lower temperatures than other neighborhoods. Even if it does,
there is no evidence in the record that the lower temperatures are due to the specific
trees in question (this criterion is applied on an individual, case-by-case tree basis).
Finally, even if both of the above are true, there is no evidence that the lower
temperature caused by the subject tree(s) provide distinctive character to the
neighborhood.
Page 6
Sub-Conclusion—Criterion 3(a): The Commission found that none of the nine trees, which met
the first three elements of significance (healthy, noninvasive trees over 15 inches in diameter),
were significant to the neighborhood due to size, species or distinctive character under LOC
55.02.080(3)(a).
(ii) Subcriterion b -Alterations to the Distinctive Features or Continuity of the
Neighborhood Skyline:
Alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline, as viewed
from all public streets and properties within 300 ft. of the property;
This subcriterion requires that Applicant show that none of the proposed tree removals will
have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood by
altering distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline.
• Appellant's NITA:
The NITA does not reference the effect of tree removal on the skyline.
• Commission Finding:
In the event Appellant asserts that Criterion 3(b) was not met, the Commission:
o Found "the vast majority of the trees remaining on the site provide the skyline
prominence (Exhibit G-502, pg. 5)."( Exhibit B-001, pg. 3.)
o Incorporated Staff Findings. (Exhibit D-001, pg. 13. Exhibit B-001, pg. 3.)
■ "There is prominent and abundant foliage behind the property that fills in the
skyline; the neighborhood skyline as a whole will not be significantly affected"
(Exhibit F-001, pg. 5).
■ The City's contract arborist found, based on a site visit and observation of the
skyline from the neighborhood, that "...with the proposed retention... of a dense
group of tall, mature Douglas-firs, the proposed removals will not alter the
distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline." (Exhibit F-002, pg.
1.)
Sub-Conclusion—Criteria 3(b): The Commission found that the 12 trees proposed for removal
would not alter the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline.
b.) Criterion 3; Exception b: Reasonable Alternatives.
"[Criterion 3]is not applicable when:
Exception b. Alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no
reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
Page 7
placement of structures (development purpose) or alternative landscaping designs
(outgrown landscape area; landscape plan) that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego
Code."
This Exception is applied only to the specific trees where their removal would not meet any of
subcriteria 3(a-e). Thus,the Council must first determine which trees do not meet subcriteria
3(a-e), and then analyze this exception criterion with respect to each respective tree.
The Commission found that not all of the five subcriteria were met for Trees#10140, 10141,
10143, and 10147, as they are in the public right-of-way and considered street trees and thus,
the removal of these trees were examined by the Commission under Exception b to Criterion 3.
In this Exception, the question is whether there are reasonable site plans or structure
placement that would lessen the impact on trees so long as the alternative would "allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone" and comply with other Code requirements. The
Council has previously held that the necessity for the applicant to consider alternatives to the
tree removal and show that no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone" does not require the applicant to consider reducing the development to
less than permitted in the zone. [See Renaissance Custom Homes, AP 19-07, Council Findings,
pg. 2; Renaissance Custom Homes, AP 18-02, Council Findings, pg. 4.]
• Appellant's NITA:
"Applicant failed to consider all reasonable alternatives and failed to demonstrate that no
reasonable alternatives were available."
o No evidence about "standard driveway width."
o "The standard is not what is standard, it is 'constructability' and functionality as
evidenced by the market acceptance."
o Applicant presented no evidence or testimony that it considered a narrower driveway
to reduce the number of proposed removals or that a narrower driveway would not
be accepted in the market. Written testimony was submitted indicating that the
driveways to the immediate left and right of the subject property have driveways
much narrower than proposed by Applicant, indicating market acceptance for a
narrower driveway.
o Applicant presented no evidence that it considered adjusting the size of the home to
reduce the number of tree removals. A reasonable alternative can include small
adjustments to the size of a home to avoid additional tree removal.
• Commission Findings:
The Commission found that only four trees were subject to a "reasonable alternatives"
exception analysis because they were street trees per Criterion 3(d). However, even if all of the
trees did not meet Criterion 3, thus requiring Exception b for removal, the Commission found
that there was no reasonable alternative. (Exhibit B-001, pgs. 3, 5.)
Page 8
o Three of the street trees (#10140, 10141, and 10143) are in poor condition, with
poor structure, per project arborist (Exhibit F-001, pg. 7) and the City's contract
arborist (Exhibit F-002, pg. 2), which makes them susceptible to windthrow. There
are no reasonable alternatives to removal of trees in poor condition "because trees
in poor condition should be removed, either for landscaping purposes or when
needed for development purposes." (Exhibit D-001, pg. 4.)
o Tree #10147 is located within the proposed driveway approach (Exhibit F-001, pgs. 3
and 11). Specific neighborhood zoning and overlay requirements that prohibit the
proposed dwelling and driveway being located in any other position on the property.
"Staff found, based on the alternative analysis submitted by the applicant,that there
was no reasonable alternative that would allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone that would lessen the impact on trees (Exhibit D-001)."
Here are the relevant findings from the Staff Report:
■ Applicant considered all the required zoning regulations when placing the
structure, along with subsequent required utilities.
■ Flipping the footprint, which is the only alternative given the zoning
restraints for this property, would require removal of more trees, so this is
not a reasonable alternative.
■ Applicant withdrew two of the proposed removals, as requested by staff,
because adjustments to the foundation, specifically bridging of the
foundation wall to accommodate roots, could be made and still retain Tree
#10087. The withdrawal led to an additional tree being withdrawn as it
would no longer have significant negative impacts from the proposed
removal since it was adjacent to the larger tree. (DRC Findings, Exhibit B-001,
pg. 3). (See also Exhibit F-001, pg. 7. Exhibit B-001, pgs. 4-5.)
o The proposed driveway width complies with the zone and overlay impervious area
standards. (Exhibit F-001, pg. 3). Reduction of permitted development is not a
"reasonable alternative" that can be required. See above cited Council and
Commission Findings.
o Evidence of constructability and market is required when an opponent presents an
alternative design: "challenges based on that [reasonable alternatives] point— must
consider the "constructability" analysis of the resulting floor plan and the resulting
functionality of the alternative as evidenced by market acceptance. [Renaissance
Homes, AP 22-03 and -04, Commission Findings, pgs. 7-8; Council Findings, pg. 4.
Exhibit B-001, pg. 3; Exhibit D-001, pg. 16.]
• Staff Comment: On Appellant's argument that Applicant must reduce the driveway
width unless Applicant shows that a reduced driveway would not have market
acceptance, Appellant is in error. If the proposed development contains a site feature
that would result in removal of a tree that does not meet Criterion 3, then the applicant
must show that reasonable alternatives were considered that would, if the applicant
wishes, still permit maximum development allowed by the development code. If an
opponent proposes an alternative to show that the applicant did not consider all
reasonable alternatives that still allows the applicant the maximum development and
would not result in removal of the tree, the opponent must show that the opponent's
Page 9
proposed alternative is "reasonable," which requires the opponent to show that the
opponent's alternative design is both constructible and functional, as evidenced by
market acceptance. Appellant did not present an alternative that permitted maximum
development allowed by the code; rather Appellant argues that Applicant should
develop less than permitted by the code.
c.) Applicability of ORS 197.307
"[A]local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards,
conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed
housing. The standards, conditions and procedures:
(a) May include, but are not limited to, one or more provisions regulating the
density or height of a development.
(b) May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging
needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay." ORS 197.307(4).
If the code criteria are not met for a tree, Applicant alternatively argues that, as the purpose of
the tree removal is for development of housing, that the code criteria cannot be applied if it is
not "clear and objective" or if the code criteria has the effect results in unreasonable cost or
delay. Thus, if the Council finds that code criteria for tree removal are not met, the Council
would then consider whether ORS 197.307(4) applies, and if so, whether that code criteria not
met is not "clear and objective" or results in unreasonable cost or delay.
• Appellant's NITA
"Applicant asserted at hearing that ORS 197.307 applies. However, per a memorandum by
Deputy City Attorney dated September 1, 2023, ORS 197.307 does not apply to tree removals
for landscaping purposes. The memorandum further recognizes that the statute does not apply
to exterior amenities.
Many of the proposed removals are proposed to be removed for the driveway and
landscaping. The driveway is not housing. The statute does not apply at all."
• Staff Comment: No person in opposition raised ORS 197.307(4) as a ground for denial of
any tree removal. In fact, this statute was raised by the Applicant, as alternative
grounds for approval of the tree removal permit, if it were found that criteria of LOC
55.02.080 was not met, but that criteria that was not "clear and objective," as the
applicant argues that the statute prohibits the City from applying a criteria that is not
"clear and objective."
The Appellant now counters Applicant's argument on legal argument that was not raised below.
"No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised with sufficient specificity
to enable the hearing body and the parties or, if applicable, the City Engineer, to respond." LOC
55.02.085(4) / LOC 50.007.003.7.h.i. However, if the Council finds that it must address the
Applicant's assertion regarding the applicability of ORS 197.307(4)to the criteria of ORS
Page 10
55.02.080, staff finds that the Appellant may raise legal argument as to the statute's
applicability, based upon the evidence in the Record, because the issue was raised with
sufficient specificity before the Commission by the Applicant.
• Commission Finding
As to ORS 197.307 as applied to these trees, and as the Commission found that all code criteria
had been met, the Commission declined to adopt alternative findings regarding ORS 197.307.
(Exhibit B-001, pg. 6.)
Landscaping Purpose— Trees#10140 and#10141. The Commission found that:
"Tree removal of a tree with poor structure, that cannot be addressed through pruning, is
itself sufficient as evidence of a landscape plan. [See DRC Findings, pg. 2, Taylor (Finding
incorporated by Council), AP 18-09 (tree in poor condition removed; mitigation tree
planting was sufficient)]. This subcriterion is met for Trees#10140 and #10141." (Exhibit B-
001, pg. 1, incorporating Exhibit D-001, pg. 6.)
Development Purpose—All Other Trees:As the Commission found that all code criteria had
been met, the Commission declined to adopt alternative findings regarding ORS 197.307(4).
(Exhibit B-001, pg. 6.)
• Staff Comment: In AP 23-02, the applicant submitted a tree removal request for two
trees in the backyard for landscaping purposes. The Deputy City Attorney opined that
ORS 197.307(4) was not applicable because, as applied to the specific tree removal
requests, LOC 55.02.080 was not a standard "regulating the development of housing":
"The two trees are not proposed for removal for the "development of housing":
whether the two trees are removed or not, the housing may still be developed as
proposed because they are proposed for removal due to landscaping purposes."
The AP 23-02 trees were not located in the building footprint.
"The focus in the context of this statute is on housing per se --the dwelling— not on
exterior amenities on lots being developed with housing that is neither restricted nor
prevented." [AP 23-02, Exhibit D-003, pgs. 2, 4.] [Attachment 1.]
Landscaping Purpose— Trees#10140 and#10141:These two trees are proposed by the
applicant for landscaping purposes, not for development purposes. (Exhibit F-001, pg. 7.) Staff
finds no evidence in the Record that not removing these two trees would preclude the housing
development from being developed as proposed.
These two trees are stated by Applicant's arborist to be in poor condition (Exhibit F-001, pg. 11)
and are therefore being proposed for removal for landscaping improvements on site per
Page 11
Criterion 1.b.The City's contract arborist concurred that they are in poor condition. (Exhibit F-
002, pg. 2.)
ORS 197.307(4) would not preclude the application of the code criteria in determining whether
or not two trees can be removed for landscaping purposes. However, as noted, Staff and the
Commission found that the code criteria were met.
Development Purpose—All Other Trees:Applicant seeks removal of all other trees for
development purposes. (Exhibit F-001, pg. 7.) Appellant overreads the Deputy City Attorney's
opinion by arguing that no tree outside of the building footprint cannot be subject to the ORS
197.307(4)'s prohibition against "standards, .... regulating the development of housing" that are
not clear and objective. Staff believes that Appellant is overreading the physical requirement
needed for a regulation to have an effect upon "development of housing." For example, in
Warren v. Washington County, 296 Or. App. 595 (2019), the county required the developer to
set aside and improve a riparian area as a requirement for a subdivision development; the
riparian standards were not applied, as they were not "clear and objective."
If the Council finds that specific trees proposed for removal for development purposes do not
comply with all code criteria, presenting the question whether ORS 197.307(4) would prohibit
denial of the application for removal notwithstanding the removal not complying with the code
criteria, staff requests the Council continue deliberation for staff to address the code criteria
the Council finds not met, the specifics of the tree involved and its applicability to ORS
197.307(4).
d.) Applicant has burden of demonstrating that the proposed removals meet all Type II
criteria:
[Note: Although the title of this section of Appellant's NITA suggests that Applicant failed to
meet its burden, the real assertion by Appellant is that the Commission did not perform its
obligations in considering the testimony.]
Following the close of the public testimony, the DRC shall determine, based upon the
evidence and testimony in the record, whether or not the application complies with the
criteria contained in LOC 55.02.080. The findings, conclusions, and order shall contain the
DRC's reasons for approving, approving with conditions, or denying the permit. [LOC
55.02.085(3), in part.]
• Appellant's NITA:
"The Order and Staff Report largely defer to generic statements made by the Applicant."
• Commission Findings:
Page 12
The Commission held a public hearing, and received and considered all testimony and exhibits.
It adopted Findings and Conclusions, setting for its reasons for the approval of the tree removal
permit with conditions. (Exhibit B-001, pg. 1—6.)
• Staff Comment: The question is whether there is evidence in the record that supports
the Commission's decision, and whether the Commission has explained the basis of its
decision, based on that evidence. The NITA should contain:
"a discussion of the specific issues raised for the Council's consideration and the
specific reasons why the appellant contends that the hearing body's decision is
incorrect or not in accordance with the applicable criteria." [LOC 55.02.085(4);
50.07.003.7.c.ii(5)].
and although persons may raise other issues beyond that in the NITA, those arguments
must "be limited to argument regarding issues raised before the hearing body ..., and
shall be based solely upon the record of the proceedings." [LOC 55.02.085(4);
50.07.003.7.k.i.] Appellant has not identified with specificity what "generic statements"
Appellant is asserting that the Commission relied upon that were not supported by
evidence in the record. Staff is unable to respond with specificity to Appellant's NITA in
this Council Report to what is not specifically identified by Appellant.
Conclusion:
The Commission found that Applicant had met its burden of showing that the code criteria of
LOC 55.02.080(1)-(5) were met, including Exception b to Criterion 3 were met and, upon
adoptions of findings, conclusion and order, approved the issuance of the permit with
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council affirm the Commission's decision and approve Tree Removal
Application 499-23-001116-TREE.
EXHIBITS
A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL
A-001 Request for Appeal 499-22-001116-TREE, received October 19, 2023
A-002 Erin Williams Notice of Intent to Appeal, received December 14, 2023
B. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER
B-001 Development Review Commission Findings, Conclusions, and Order, dated
December 4, 2023
Page 13
C. MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION HEARINGS
C-001 Minutes from November 20, 2023 Development Review Commission meeting
C-002 Minutes from December 4, 2023 Development Review Commission meeting
D. STAFF REPORTS
D-001 AP 23-03 Staff Report, dated November 9, 2023
E. GRAPHICS/PLANS
E-001 Vicinity Map
E-002 Existing Features Map
E-003 Site Map with Contours
E-004 Staff PowerPoint Presentation, November 20, 2023
F. WRITTEN MATERIALS
F-001 499-22-001116-TREE Type II Application
F-002 Summary of Staff Findings 499-22-001116-TREE
F-003 Notice of Tentative Staff Decision 499-22-001116-TREE
F-004 Applicant's Mitigation Plan 10-9-2023
F-005 Mitigation Plan Recommendations 10-17-2023
F-006 Supplemental Information from Applicant Representative, Jordan Ramis, dated
11-13-23
F-007 Applicant's Revised Mitigation Plan, dated 11-14-23
F-008 Applicant's Stormwater Statement, received 11-15-23
G. LETTERS
Neither For Nor Against (G-001-G-099)
None
Support (G-100-G-500)
G-100 McCall Comments, received November 17, 2023
Opposition (G-501+)
G-501 Johnsen Comments, received September 9, 2023
G-502 Fiegenbaum Comments, received September 10, 2023
G-503 Smith Comments, received September 13, 2023
G-504 Froming Comments, received September 18, 2023
G-505 Gaudin Comments, received September 18, 2023
Page 14
G-506 Meckel Comments, received September 18, 2023
G-507 Williams Comments, received September 18, 2023
G-508 Benn Comments, received September 18, 2023
G-509 Newell Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-510 Browning Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-511 Klose, Breanna Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-512 Klose, Andrew Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-513 Froming Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-514 Sweet Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-515 Bechtold-Yoo Comments, received September 19, 2023
G-516 Gaudin Comments, received September 20, 2023
G-517 Gould Comments, received September 20, 2023
G-518 Williams Comments, received September 20, 2023
The City Staff Report, DRC Findings, and all exhibits are available at the above address and
online at www.lakeoswego.city(type AP 23-03 in the search box at the top of the screen for
the Public Record of File).
ATTACHMENT 1
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3 A REQUEST FOR A TYPE II TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AP 23-03
FOR TWELVE TREES AT 2800 WEMBLEY PARK RD. TR 499-23-001116-TREE
4 ---- RENAISSANCE HOMES, LLC
AN APPEAL BY ERIN WILLIAMS FROM A
5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& ORDER
APPROVING THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
6
7 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
8 This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on an appeal by Erin Williams
9 ("Appellant")from a Development Review Commission ("Commission") Order approving Renaissance
10 Homes, LLC's ("Applicant") application for a Type II tree removal permit to remove 12 trees to construct
11 a new single-family dwelling with landscaping improvements (Exhibit A-001).The site is located at 2800
12 Wembley Park Rd (Tax Lot Reference 21E08AA01800).The request for hearing was timely filed on
13 December 14, 2023.
14 HEARINGS
15 The Appellant had submitted written testimony for the previously requested hearing before the
16 Commission on the staff's tentative approval of the application.The Commission held a public hearing
17 and considered the staff approval of the tree removal permit application at its meeting of November 20,
18 2023.The Commission adopted Findings, Conclusion and Order approving the permit on December 4,
19 2023 (Exhibit B-001).
20 The City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Commission's order on
21 February 6, 2024.
22 ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY
23 Pursuant to LOC 55.02.085(4),the hearing before the City Council shall be on the record
24 established before the Commission and only persons who appeared before the Commission orally or in
25 writing may testify.The following written testimony was received after the publication of the Council
26 Report from qualified persons:
Page 1— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (AP 23-03/TR 499-23-001116-TREE)
1 [To be Updated on Feb. 6,after noon;final version to be handed out to the Council at
2
meeting].
3
4 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
5 City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551:
6 LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits
LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Required
7 LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit
LOC 55.02.094 Conditions of Approval for Tree Cutting Permits
8
FINDINGS AND REASONS
9
As support for its decision,the City Council incorporates the November 9, 2023 Staff Report
10
(Exhibit D-001), with all exhibits, the February 6, 2024 Council Report, with all exhibits, and the Findings
11
and Conclusions of the Development Review Commission (Exhibit B-001), supplemented by the further
12
findings and conclusions of the City Council, below. In the event of any inconsistency between the
13
supplemental findings and the incorporated matter,the supplemental findings control. Following are
14
the supplemental findings and conclusions of the City Council.
15
1. Issues Raised Before and Addressed by the Commission
16
The issues raised before the Council are limited to the issues raised before the
17
Commission with sufficient specificity to allow the Commission to respond to the issue. LOC
18
55.02.085(4); LOC 50.07.003.7.k. Accordingly,the Council need not address issues raised before it
19
because, except to the extent the Council adopts supplemental findings herein,the Council incorporates
20
the Commission's Findings (Exhibit B-001) and the Council Report with respect to those raised issued to
21
the Council.
22
23
CONCLUSION
24
Based upon its findings,the City Council concludes that the applicant has met the burden of
25
showing that all applicable criteria and standards for a tree removal permit are met--or that as to LOC
26
Page 2— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (AP 23-03/TR 499-23-001116-TREE)
1 55.02.080(3) criteria,that Exception b is met--or can be met with conditions of approval.
2 ORDER
3 The City Council orders that the Commission's Order approving the application for tree removal
4 is affirmed and the application for a Type II tree removal permit for 12 trees [TR 499-23-001116-TREE] is
5 approved with the following conditions:
6
A. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, submit a final mitigation plan for 2800
7
8 Wembley Park Rd. (Exhibit F-007) showing the location, size, and species of 12 native
9 mitigation trees, which shall be selected from LOC Appendix 55-02-1, Native Mitigation
10 Tree List that comply with the minimum size requirements per LOC 55.02.084.
11 B. Prior to the final building inspection for the dwelling at 2800 Wembley Park Rd., plant all
12 required mitigation trees per Condition A, above, and request a site inspection by staff.
13
14
AYES:
15
NOES:
16
ABSTAIN:
17
EXCUSED:
18
19
DATED this 6th day of February, 2024.
20
21
22 Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
23
24
25 ATTEST:
Kari Linder, City Recorder
26
Page 3— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (AP 23-03/TR 499-23-001116-TREE)