HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-11-02 PMLAXE oswEco
AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 380 AAvenue
PO Box 369
b1ba Tuesday, November 2, 2010 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
5:30 p.m. 503-675-3984
Council Chambers, 380 AAvenue www.ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at:
Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: 503-675-3984
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact
the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page #
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS (20 minutes)
3.1 LOIS Update
3.2 Water Partnership Update
3.3 Review of First Quarter Financial Information
4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no
discussion.
♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent
agenda.
4.1 REPORTS
4.1.1 Resignation from the Historic Resources Advisory Board
Action: Accept resignation of Marylou Colver from the Historic
Resources Advisory Board
Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Dan Vizzini, Councilor
Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor
Page 2
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 10-63, appointing youth members on advisory boards
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-63, appointing Kevin O'Leary to the Library Advisory
Board; Josh Nudelman to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board; Madeline Brewster
to the Historic Resources Advisory Board; Kavita Rajani to the Transportation
Advisory Board; and Stephani Wax to the Natural Resources Advisory Board
4.2.2 Resolution 10-64, authorizing the establishment of commercial food waste
collection rates for Allied Waste of Lake Oswego
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-64
4.2.2 Resolution 10-66, making appointments to the Planning Commission
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-66, appointing Puja Bhutani to a four-year term ending
May 31, 2014; Todd Prager to the remainder of a term ending May 31, 2011; and to
designate Ryan Flynn as alternate should there be a vacancy due to attrition through
April 30, 2011
4.3 MINUTES
4.3.1 March 23, 2010, regular meeting
4.3.2 June 22, 2010, special meeting
4.3.3 June 23, 2010, special meeting
4.3.4 September 28, 2010, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT (30 minutes)
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise
an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not
include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply.
Page 3
7. PUBLIC HEARING (15 minutes)
7.1 Ordinance 2559, an ordinance annexing to the City of Lake Oswego one parcel
comprising approximately 0.65 acres at 4747 Upper Drive; declaring City of Lake
Oswego zoning pursuant to LOC 50.05.025; and removing the parcel from certain
districts (AN 10-0004)
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
Staff Report by Paul Espe, Associate Planner
The following time limits on testimony shall be observed, but may be changed by
the Council:
Testimony will be taken in the following order: in support of annexation, in
opposition to annexation, neutral.
• 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association,
homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public
interest organization;
• 5 minutes for other persons.
Questions of Staff
Discussion
Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2559.
8. REPORTS (30 minutes)
8.1 Personal Services Contract to Provide Right -of -Way Acquisition Services for the
expansion of the City of Lake Oswego's Water Supply System
Motion: Move to approve award of a personal service contract in the amount not -
to -exceed $399,844 to Universal Field Services, Inc., to provide right-of-way
acquisition services related to the expansion of the City of Lake Oswego's water
supply system
8.2 Resolution 10-58, declaring the public necessity to acquire real property for the Lake
Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership Project and authorizing related activities
Motion: Move to adopt resolution 10-58
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes)
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide
information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each
Councilor will be given five minutes.
Page 4
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (15 minutes)
10.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.1.2 Review of Council Digest
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The
meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m. Friday 2:30 a.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m. Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 10/28/10
DATE
MEETING
Monday,
Joint meeting with the City of Tigard, WEB, Willamette Room 7 p.m.
November 8
Tuesday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 9
•
Emergency Operations Plan Update (30 minutes)
•
Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development
(LU 10-0043) (1 hour)
•
Revisions to list of invasive tree species (20 minutes)
•
Comprehensive Plan text amendment to definition of congregate housing
(LU 10-0041) (20 minutes)
Monday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB, Santiam Room
November 15
•
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Status Update and Council Questions
(60 minutes)
Tuesday,
Special
Meeting, 5:30 p.m. Municipal Court
November 16
•
Comprehensive Plan Update — Draft Vision/ Futures Scenario Development
(with Planning Commission)
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
•
Photo Contest Winners
•
Neighbors Helping Neighbors
•
Electric Lightwave Franchise Renewal (Ord. 2564)
•
Closed Session: real property
Study
Session
•
Natural Area Restoration and Maintenance (30 minutes)
•
Natural Resource Education and Outreach Proposals (30 minutes)
Tuesday,
Break for Thanksgiving
November 23
Monday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Workroom
November 29
•
Charter Officer Evaluations
Tuesday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 30
•
Update to Water Cost of Service Analysis (30 minutes)
•
Update to Master Fees and Charges (30 minutes)
•
Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay (30 minutes)
•
Review of small isolated tree groves on the Natural Resources Map (30 minutes)
•
Natural Resources Map Correction Process (30 minutes)
•
CDC Amendment to extend development permit completion deadline
(30 minutes)
Monday,
Redevelopment Agency, 6:30 p.m. Main Fire Station
December 6
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 10/28/10
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 7
• LOIS Update
• Water Partnership Update
• Comp Plan Update
• Unsung Hero Awards
• Award Professional Services Contract for Stormwater Code Rewrite
• Multiple site landscape contract
• Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership: Approval of Supply Facilities
Capital Improvement Plan
• Support of statewide plastic bag ban (Res. 10-65)
Public Hearings
• Comprehensive Plan text amendment to definition of congregate housing
(LU 10-0041)
Monday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 13
Public Hearings
• Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development
(LU 10-0043)
• Adoption of revised list of invasive tree species
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 14
• Award Construction Contract for Chow Corner Pedestrian Improvements
• Northwest Natural Franchise Renewal (Ord. 2565)
• PRAB Recommendation for naming lakefront park
• Adoption of Emergency Operations Plan
• Review of 2010 Goals
• Audit Committee Report
Public Hearings
• Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation —Amendments to create new
overlay zone (LU 10-0040)
• Adoption of Update to Master Fees and Charges
• CDC Amendment to extend development permit completion deadline
Tuesday,
No Meeting
December 21
Tuesday,
No meeting
December 28
To Be Scheduled
• Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Locally Preferred Alternative Process (December/January)
• Review draft Wastewater Master Plan (January 2011)
• Context statement relating to Lake Oswego's Iron Industry and Mid -Century periods
• Lake Down Tour
• ACC National Accreditation
• Vancouver, WA fieldtrip
• Foothills Update
• Industrial Park Zone Amendment (LU 10-0042)
• Media in Executive Session Policy
• Municipal Finance Presentation
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
FROM:
SUBJECT
DATE:
ACTION
COUNCIL REPORT
Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
-3 .'3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Ursula Euler, Finance Director and Shawn Cross, Assistant Finance Director
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Review Financial Information as of the first quarter that ended on September 30, 2010
October 25, 2010
Review and discuss fiscal year 2010-11 financial information of the first quarter ending September 30,
2010.
INTRODUCTION
The first quarter of the new fiscal year has passed and staff is presenting financial information for all funds.
Staff compared actual expenditures to the same period of the previous year and to current year
expectations, and commented on those items that might raise questions, either because the current year
information is much different from the previous year, or because revenues or expenditures seem to trail or
exceed expectations.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
General Fund
Clackamas, Washington and Multnomah Counties have certified the amounts of total assessed value and
Property Taxes to be billed for FY2010-11. When compared to the property tax budget and the information
used to develop it, it becomes apparent that the assumed growth of 1% (over and above the allowed 3%
increase) for property in Clackamas County, has not materialized; instead, actual growth was closer to 0.3%.
In the past five years, growth has proved to range between 0.9% and 2.5%; here, history may not be a good
indicator for the future. When staff presents the 5 -year forecast for the General Fund, assessed value
growth is an impactful variable and it may be prudent to assume a factor that is smaller than 1%.
The FY2010-11 reports from the three counties show again that compression is not a factor in Lake
Oswego. According to the recent report by Todd Chase of FCS Group, median home prices in Lake Oswego
Page 2
have declined by 22% since hitting a peak in February 2008, narrowing the gap between current market
values and assessed values in the future and the time within which compression might become a factor.
Should this trend continue, staff estimates that for an average home owner, assessed value might merge
with market value in approximately 10 years, unless values recover.
This fiscal year's final tax collection will certainly be affected by such factors as collectability and the
number of people who will take advantage of early payment discounts.
It is noteworthy that Comcast has challenged its assessed property values. Clackamas and Multnomah
Counties have informed staff that the resolution of cases such as this can take many years. If it were
resolved in favor of Comcast, the City's annual property tax billings may decline by as much as $90,000
annually. Both counties will begin to establish a reserve this fiscal year by withholding distributions from its
jurisdictions for the previous fiscal year, but the magnitude is yet to be determined.
Tax collections may be slightly less than budgeted; it is early in the year and after the December 2010
distributions are received, staff will be in a better position to assess the reduction, if any.
Licenses and Fees are well within budget. Permitting fees so far have been realized as expected, as have
Hotel/Motel taxes. In the latter case, a downward trend had been incorporated into this fiscal year's
budget.
Other Financing Sources are also well within budget, but lower than in the previous year because intra -
General Fund payments for services (transfers) are no longer recorded, while services by the General Fund
— mostly administrative services — to other funds are recorded.
In July, the City paid the entire fiscal year's workers compensation insurance cost. This means an early cost
of approximately $380,000 to the General Fund. Without it, overall General Fund Personal Services
spending would stand at 24.1% of budget. (City-wide it would stand at 24.4%.) Fire and Police are making
use of overtime to bridge personnel absences (due to FMLA leave and turn -over), and Personal Services
expenditures in Parks at 25.5% reflects seasonal expenditure acceleration, which will likely be offset by a
slow -down later in the year.
Spending in Materials and Services appears to be lagging. It usually accelerates as staff completes
necessary contracts and as work can begin under these agreements for the new fiscal year.
Debt Service represents the interest payment on the Line of Credit. The interest payment is made semi-
annually, while the interest rate changes quarterly. The most recent annual rate has moved from 1.8977%
to 1.7250%. As the table to the left shows interest
Time period
Line -of -
Credit
Interest
Rate
Jan 7 — April 6, 2010
1.5697%
April 7 —July 6, 2010
1.6786%
July 7 - October 6, 2010
1.8977%
October 7, 2010 - January 6, 2011
1.7250%
rates increased until July 2010 and more recently
declined again. The FY2010-11 Budget incorporates
$600,000 for interest expense at an approximately
average interest rate of 3%. This will stand in good
stead for the cost of a more permanent financing for
the West End Property. The Line of Credit expires as of
July 6, 2011 and it is likely that the City will have to
enter into a bridge financing vehicle between then and
Page 3
until an alternate funding plan can reasonably be implemented after a May 2011 vote.
Transfers to other funds will catch up later in the year when certain transfers are made in support of Golf
and Streets operations, if needed. Planning and Building is budgeted to transfer $290,000 to Streets to
forward funds from the Bridgeport case settlement in payment of the Chow Corner work to be performed
by Public Works.
Attached you will find a report on capital projects budgeted in the General Fund, which explains progress
and spending in capital outlay.
Tourism Fund
Hotel/Motel taxes are received once a month with a one month lag. They are tracking very closely to the
previous year's experience and budget. The budget incorporated an expected downward trend for this
revenue stream. A one-time transfer of $300,000 to the General Fund in reimbursement of the cost of the
Iron Furnace is scheduled for October.
Trolley Fund
The City and its three Consortium members make a $20,000 payment once a year toward the end of the
calendar year. Engineering is overseeing maintenance work for the trolley, much of which is scheduled as
the need arises.
Golf and Tennis
Both enterprises are highly seasonal, with Golf revenues lagging expectations and Tennis revenues
exceeding expectations. In both funds, Personal Services follow the revenues, with Golf slowing spending
and with Tennis experiencing accelerated expenditures.
Water Fund
Sales and Services revenue reflects rate increases that were implemented as of July 1, 2010, where the first
two billing cycles (mid-July for one half of customers, and mid-August for the other half) included some
pre -July 1 consumption at previous rates. It is reasonable to assume a high pace of revenue realization in
the first and second quarter (Summer and Fall), which is then offset by a slower pace in Winter and Spring.
Staff has begun work on a water consumption report that can show consumption by Tier. Tiered rates for
residential customers became effective as of July 1, 2009, and are to be phased in over several years; tiered
rates are a long-term pricing tool and our residential customers just recently completed one first full cycle
under the new pricing methodology.
Current year miscellaneous revenues are much lower than for the same period in the previous year,
because current interest rates are lower than in the previous year. The budget anticipated this trend.
A separate capital report is attached to provide insight into the progress of planned capital projects.
Page 4
Wastewater
Sales & Services revenue includes the July 1, 2010 rate increase. Similar to what was described for the
Water Fund, fees were prorated for pre -July 1 estimated usage. This is due to the every -other -month billing
cycle. Although early in the year, staff is hopeful that this utility's revenues will be within expectations. Its
revenue variability is low because usage is based on the previous average winter usage, which has little
variability in itself, and because the fixed portion of the typical customer's charge is about 73%. This was
by design to afford the utility a reliable revenue stream for future debt service payments.
The issue of the second LOIS bond was completed successfully on September 30, 2010. The true interest
cost is 3.3861%, a very favorable rate. Actual proceeds were $34,865,537, with a premium of $227,466, to
be amortized over the life of the bond, and an underwriter's fee of $361,929, or 1.03%. The latter does not
include rating agency fees, printing fees, fees for legal counsel or the financial advisor, and several smaller
fees. Staff expects all bond issue costs to be around 1.5% of the bond issue.
The Capital Outlay budget includes $39,425,000 for LOIS and $5,041,000 for non -LOIS projects. $7,361,402
of actual spending this year relates to LOIS, while $6,917 relates to non -LOIS projects. The enclosed capital
projects reports provides more insight into the progress of specific projects.
Surface Water
Once again, Sales & Services revenue includes a 7% rate increase as of July 1, 2010, that was pro -rated for
the billing cycle falling before and after July 1St
Personal Services appear to outpace any seasonality and might require attention later this year, as may
Personal Services in the other utilities. Staff will keep an eye on it.
Materials and Services spending is lagging at this time but is expected to catch up as the year progresses.
Street Fund
Intergovernmental revenues (Highway taxes) are collected monthly with a one month delay. The current
budget incorporated a higher budget than the previous year in expectation of higher fuel taxes. It is too
early in the year to predict if expectations were realistic. Licenses and Fees include the first of three
scheduled increases of Street fees; so far revenue realized slightly exceeds expectations.
A transfer of $290,000 is scheduled for October from the Planning Department (in the General Fund) to the
Street Fund. This is for Bridgeport funds originally received into Planning, while the Street Fund will
actually undertake the project — listed as Chow Corner Sidewalk in the Capital Improvement Plan.
The enclosed capital projects report provides more insight into capital spending and the progress of specific
capital projects.
Maintenance Services & Motor Pool and Engineering
In the first three months, both of these funds held their own in that revenues slightly exceeded
Page 5
expenditures. Staff continues to analyze labor division and costs in the Motor Pool and labor utilization in
the Engineering Fund. Some changes have been made and staff is hopeful that they will continue to bear
fruit, so that both funds can cover their own costs through appropriate charges.
Other
During the FY2009-10 audit, it has become apparent that the newly established fund for the Lake Oswego -
Tigard Water Partnership is better handled as a department integral to the Water Fund, similar to the LOIS
department within the Wastewater Fund, rather than as a separate fund. Staff could continue to maintain
a separate fund for internal reporting or reporting to Council. For the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report the two funds will have to be combined and treated as one. Staff would like to consider doing the
same for internal reporting and will consolidate this budget change with a future budget supplement.
Staff is happy to answer any other questions either during the study session or after.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit A - City of Lake Oswego Budget Report, September 30, 2010
2. Exhibit B — FY 2010-11 First Quarter CIP Spending
3. Exhibit C — Engineering Construction Services — Composite Project Schedule
Reviewed bv-
Alex D. cl
City Manag
LAKEOSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD
City of Lake Oswego
Budget Summary - Citywide
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE
% of BUDGET
Revenues
Property Taxes
151,910
158,166
29,698,000
29,539,834
0.5%
Franchise Fees
126,093
135,199
2,438,000
2,302,801
5.5%
Intergovernmental
493,525
1,857,955
11,130,000
9,272,045
16.7%
Licenses and Fees
1,228,110
1,734,213
5,703,000
3,968,787
30.4%
Fines and Forfeitures
240,131
290,623
970,000
679,377
30.0%
Sales and Services
5,382,776
6,153,549
22,195,000
16,041,451
27.7%
Special Assessments
27,904
4,894
44,000
39,106
11.1%
Miscellaneous Revenues
366,679
266,620
1,331,000
1,064,380
20.0%
Other Financing Sources
1,849,583
37,653,891
61,391,000
23,737,109
61.3%
Total Revenues
9,866,711
48,255,110
134,900,000
86,644,890
35.8%
Expenditures
Personal Services
8,914,468
9,483,574
37,467,000
27,983,426
25.3%
Materials and Services
2,817,727
2,861,072
19,601,000
16,739,928
14.6%
Other Financing Uses
0
0
0
0
NaN
Debt Service
12,455,531
0
7,620,000
7,620,000
0.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
1,847,083
2,653,891
11,391,000
8,737,109
23.3%
Capital Outlay
5,870,042
9,209,447
56,319,776
47,110,329
16.4%
Contingency
0
0
34,957,612
34,957,612
0.0%
Total Expenditures
31,904,852
24,207,984
167,356,388
143,148,404
14.5%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(22,038,141)
24,047,126
(32,456,388)
(56,503,514)
(74.1%)
As of 1011412010 Page 1 of 1
LAKEOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
General Fund Summary
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Revenues
Property Taxes
138,305
142,125
26,475,000
26,332,875
0.5%
Franchise Fees
126,093
135,199
1,938,000
1,802,801
7.0%
Intergovernmental
283,387
270,701
4,190,000
3,919,299
6.5%
Licenses and Fees
484,561
592,143
2,326,000
1,733,857
25.5%
Fines and Forfeitures
240,131
290,623
970,000
679,377
30.0%
Sales and Services
588,613
991,759
3,455,000
2,463,241
28.7%
Special Assessments
0
0
0
0
NaN
Miscellaneous Revenues
172,731
139,732
652,000
512,268
21.4%
Other Financing Sources
1,242.607
715,621
2,996,000
2,280,379
23.9%
Total Revenues
3,276,427
3,277,903
43,002,000
39,724,097
7.6%
Expenditures
Personal Services
7,076,059
7,551,710
30,176,000
22,624,290
25.0%
Materials and Services
1,953,074
1,913,923
10,652,000
8,738,077
18.0%
Debt Service
14,194
0
600,000
600,000
0.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
887,457
199,796
1,355,000
1,155,204
14.7%
Capital Outlay
124,776
190,200
466,000
275,800
40.8%
Contingency
0
0
7,270,000
7,270,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
10,055,560
9,855,629
50,519,000
40,663,371
19.5%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(6,779,133)
(6,577,725)
(7,517,000)
(939,275)
87.5%
As of 1011412010 Page 1 of 1
LAKE OSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
FY 2009-10
ACTUALYTD
ACTUAL
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
BUDGET BALANCE
% of BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Revenues
Property Taxes
138,305
142,125
26,475,000
26,332,875
0.5%
Franchise Fees
126,093
135,199
1,938,000
1,802,801
7.0%
Intergovernmental
283,387
270,701
4,190,000
3,919,299
6.5%
Licenses and Fees
484,561
592,143
2,326,000
1,733,857
25.5%
Fines and Forfeitures
240,131
290,623
970,000
679,377
30.0%
Sales and Services
588,613
991,759
3,455,000
2,463,241
28.7%
Special Assessments
0
0
0
0
NaN
Miscellaneous Revenues
172,731
139,732
652,000
512,268
21 A%
Other Financing Sources
1,242,607
715,621
2,996,000
2,280,379
23.9%
Total Revenues
3,276,427
3,277,903
43,002,000
39,724,097
7.6%
General Administration
Personal Services
1,033,648
1,229,523
5,294,000
4,064,477
23.2%
Materials and Services
937,390
994,023
4,617,000
3,622,977
21.5%
Debt Service
14,194
0
600,000
600,000
0.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
64,247
37,062
324,000
286,939
11.4%
Capital Outlay
107,290
0
30,000
30,000
0.0%
Contingency
0
0
7,270,000
7,270,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
2,156,768
2,260,608
18,135,000
15,874,392
12.5%
Fire
Personal Services
1,854,901
1,974,446
7,445,000
5,470,554
26.5%
Materials and Services
116,462
105,004
832,000
726,996
12.6%
Transfers to Other Funds
179,740
13,177
65,000
51,823
20.3%
Capital Outlay
0
0
32,000
32,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
2,151,103
2,092,628
8,374,000
6,281,372
25.0%
Library
Personal Services
579,064
610,412
2,522,000
1,911,588
24.2%
Materials and Services
106,765
111,050
620,000
508,950
17.9%
Transfers to Other Funds
67,504
0
0
0
NaN
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Expenditures
753,333
721,462
3,142,000
2,420,538
23.0%
Municipal Court
Personal Services
75,493
65,020
316,000
250,980
20.6%
Materials and Services
46,542
67,355
308,000
240,645
21.9%
Transfers to Other Funds
38,204
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Expenditures
160,239
132,376
624,000
491,624
21.2%
As of 1011412010
Page 1 of 11
LAKEOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
Parks and Recreation
Personal Services
754,918
819,880
3,209,000
2,389,120
25.5%
Materials and Services
486,755
379,900
2,164,000
1,784,100
17.6%
Transfers to Other Funds
127,809
59,577
287,000
227,423
20.8%
Capital Outlay
17,486
190,200
222,000
31,800
85.7%
Total Expenditures
1,386,968
1,449,557
5,882,000
4,432,443
24.6%
Adult Community Center
Personal Services
178,381
182,963
737,000
554,037
24.8%
Materials and Services
64,851
35,181
279,000
243,819
12.6%
Transfers to Other Funds
32,688
1,168
9,000
7,832
13.0%
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Expenditures
275,920
219,312
1,025,000
805,688
21.4%
Planning and Building
Personal Services
572,811
633,953
2,686,000
2,052,047
23.6%
Materials and Services
54,808
59,263
952,000
892,737
6.2%
Transfers to Other Funds
125,760
65,589
552,000
486,411
11.9%
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Expenditures
753,379
758,806
4,190,000
3,431,194
18.1%
Police
Personal Services
2,026,844
2,035,512
7,967,000
5,931,488
25.5%
Materials and Services
139,501
162,146
880,000
717,854
18.4%
Transfers to Other Funds
251,505
23,223
118,000
94,777
19.7%
Capital Outlay
0
0
182,000
182,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
2,417,850
2,220,882
9,147,000
6,926,118
24.3%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(6,779,133)
(6,577,725)
(7,517,000)
(939,275)
87.5%
As of 1011412010 Page 2 of 11
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
FY 2009-11
ACTUALYT
TOURISM FUND
250,000
Revenues
23.1%
Licenses and Fees
63,597
Miscellaneous Revenues
10
Total Revenues
63,607
Expenditures
8,554
Materials and Services
0
Transfers to Other Funds
0
Capital Outlay
0
Total Expenditures
0
Revenues - Expenditures
8,662
= Surplus (Deficit)
63,607
TROLLEY FUND
250,000
Revenues
23.1%
Intergovernmental
0
Miscellaneous Revenues
3,557
Other Financing Sources
4,997
Total Revenues
8,554
Expenditures
86,000
Materials and Services
8,662
Transfers to Other Funds
0
Contingency
0
Total Expenditures
8,662
Revenues - Expenditures
30,000
= Surplus (Deficit)
54.3%
As of 1011412010
City of Lake Oswego
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
57,750
250,000
192,250
23.1%
539
3,000
2,461
18.0%
58,289
253,000
194,711
23.0%
1,136
86,000
0
10,000
10,000
0.0%
1,753
307,000
305,247
0.6%
16,302
30,000
13,698
54.3%
18,055
347,000
328,945
5.2%
40,234
(94,000)
(134,234 ,i
(42.8%)
0
60,000
60,000
0.0%
1,136
6,000
4,864
18.9%
0
20,000
20,000
0.0%
1,136
86,000
84,864
1.3%
4,094
120,000
115,906
3.4%
52,503
60,000
7,497
87.5%
0
272,775
272,775
0.0%
56,597
452,775
396,178
12.5%
(55,461)
(366,775)
(311,314)
15.1%
Page 3of11
LAKEOSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD
City of Lake Oswego
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE
% of BUDGET
GOLF COURSE FUND
Revenues
Sales and Services
301,009
267,025
836,000
568,975
31.9%
Miscellaneous Revenues
7.889
4,248
14,000
9,752
30.3%
Other Financing Sources
0
0
110,000
110,000
0.0%
Total Revenues
308,899
271,273
960,000
688,727
28.3%
Expenditures
Personal Services
176,873
156,664
508,000
351,336
30.8%
Materials and Services
47,720
59,040
294,000
234,960
20.1%
Transfers to Other Funds
9,711
31,271
143,000
111,729
21.9%
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
0
0
20,366
20,366
0.0%
Total Expenditures
234,304
246,975
965,366
718,391
25.6%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
74,594
24,298
(5,366)
(29,664)
(452.8%)
TENNIS FACILITY FUND
Revenues
Licenses and Fees
454
441
2,000
1,559
22.1%
Sales and Services
130,671
138,672
352,000
213,328
39.4%
Miscellaneous Revenues
4,038
1,814
9,000
7,186
20.2%
Total Revenues
135,163
140,927
363,000
222,073
38.8%
Expenditures
Personal Services
28,721
35,534
129,000
93,466
27.5%
Materials and Services
14,569
36,900
123,000
86,100
30.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
30,207
31,513
123,000
91,487
25.6%
Capital Outlay
16,642
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
0
0
91,879
91,879
0.0%
Total Expenditures
90,139
103,947
466,879
362,932
22.3%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
45,024
36,981
(103,879)
(140,860)
(35.6%)
As of 1011412010 Page 4 of 11
LAKE OSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
PERCENT FOR ART FUND
Revenues
Miscellaneous Revenues
234
34
1,000
966
3.4%
Other Financing Sources
25,003
25,003
100,000
74,997
25.0%
Total Revenues
25,237
25,037
101,000
75,963
24.8%
Expenditures
82,516
38,068
180,000
141,932
21.1%
Materials and Services
36,500
50,000
88,000
38,000
56.8%
Transfers to Other Funds
0
1,753
7,000
5,247
25.0%
Capital Outlay
0
0
12,000
12,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
36,500
51,753
107,000
55,247
48.4%
Revenues - Expenditures
466,608
419,145
2,220,000
1,800,855
18.9%
= Surplus (Deficit)
(11,263)
(26,716)
(6,000)
20,716
445.3%
WATER FUND
Revenues
Intergovernmental
0
0
0
0
NaN
Licenses and Fees
3,236
1,283
10,000
8,717
12.8%
Sales and Services
2,085,562
1,972,082
6,490,000
4,517,918
30.4%
Miscellaneous Revenues
82,516
38,068
180,000
141,932
21.1%
Other Financing Sources
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Revenues
2,171,314
2,011,432
6,680,000
4,668,568
30.1%
Expenditures
Personal Services
350,523
371,039
1,440,000
1,068,961
25.8%
Materials and Services
466,608
419,145
2,220,000
1,800,855
18.9%
Other Financing Uses
0
0
0
0
NaN
Debt Service
337,838
0
958,000
958,000
0.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
247,832
1,325,744
5,313,000
3,987,257
25.0%
Capital Outlay
16,774
19,644
1,178,000
1,158,356
1.7%
Contingency
0
0
3,818,209
3,818,209
0.0%
Total Expenditures
1,419,575
2,135,572
14,927,209
12,791,637
14.3%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
751,739
(124,141)
(8,247,209)
(8,123,068 ;
1.5%
As of 1011412010 Page 5 of 11
LAKE OSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUALYTD
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
WASTEWATER FUND
Revenues
Licenses and Fees
176,860
162,019
400,000
237,981
40.5%
Sales and Services
1.839,264
2,312,934
9,159,000
6,846,066
25.3%
Miscellaneous Revenues
34,676
24,465
91,000
66,535
26.9%
Other Financing Sources
0
35,000,000
50,000,000
15,000,000
70.0%
Total Revenues
2,050,799
37,499,418
59,650,000
22,150,582
62.9%
Expenditures
62,280
86,996
326,000
239,004
26.7%
Personal Services
262,054
281,306
1,090,000
808,694
25.8%
Materials and Services
98,418
170,502
3,389,000
3,218,498
5.0%
Debt Service
12,103,500
0
2,489,000
2,489,000
0.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
252,787
339,658
1,374,000
1,034,342
24.7%
Capital Outlay
5,645,121
7,368,319
44,466,000
37,097,681
16.6%
Contingency
0
0
17,843,877
17,843,877
0.0%
Total Expenditures
18,361,879
8,159,785
70,651,877
62,492,092
11.5%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(16,311,080)
29,339,633
(11,001,877)
(40,341,510)
(266.7%)
SURFACE WATER FUND
Revenues
Sales and Services
437,657
468,692
1,893,000
1,424,308
24.8%
Miscellaneous Revenues
8,745
4,878
25,000
20,122
19.5%
Other Financing Sources
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Revenues
446,402
473,570
1,918,000
1,444,430
24.7%
Expenditures
Personal Services
62,280
86,996
326,000
239,004
26.7%
Materials and Services
45,946
23,790
817,000
793,210
2.9%
Other Financing Uses
0
0
0
0
NaN
Debt Service
0
0
235,000
235,000
0.0%
Transfers to Other Funds
152,847
234,531
947,000
712,470
24.8%
Capital Outlay
1,495
30,400
305,000
274,600
10.0%
Contingency
0
0
632,328
632,328
0.0%
Total Expenditures
262,567
375,716
3,262,328
2,886,612
11.5%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
183,835
97,853
(1,344,328)
(1,442,181)
(7.3%)
As of 1011412010 Page 6 of 11
LASEOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
STREET FUND
0
Revenues
NaN
Intergovernmental
0
Revenues
120,475
Special Assessments
1,550
Miscellaneous Revenues
15,716
Franchise Fees
0
0
500,000
500,000
0.0%
Intergovernmental
208,037
268,511
1,820,000
1,551,489
14.8%
Licenses and Fees
286,940
422,229
1,499,000
1,076,771
28.2%
Miscellaneous Revenues
86
3,256
9,000
5,744
36.2%
Other Financing Sources
0
0
334,000
334,000
0.0%
Total Revenues
494,890
693,995
4,162,000
3,468,005
16.7%
Expenditures
Personal Services
163,243
131,469
402,000
270,531
32.7%
Materials and Services
112,321
145,172
1,149,000
1,003,828
12.6%
Transfers to Other Funds
172,910
254,376
1,037,000
782,624
24.5%
Capital Outlay
47,679
258,349
1,514,000
1,255,651
17.1%
Contingency
0
0
259,732
259,732
0.0%
Total Expenditures
496,153
789,366
4,361,732
3,572,366
18.1%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(1,263)
(95,371)
(199,732)
(104,361)
47.7%
SYSTEMS DEV CHARGES FUND
0
Revenues
NaN
Intergovernmental
0
Licenses and Fees
120,475
Special Assessments
1,550
Miscellaneous Revenues
15,716
Total Revenues
137,741
Expenditures
19.8%
Materials and Services
0
Capital Outlay
0
Contingency
0
Total Expenditures
0
Revenues - Expenditures
60,000
= Surplus (Deficit)
137,741
0
0
0
0
NaN
197,064
741,000
543,936
26.6%
0
7,000
7,000
0.0%
9,295
47,000
37,705
19.8%
206,359
795,000
588,641
26.0%
0
0
0
NaN
203
60,000
59,798
0.3%
0
3,440,139
3,440,139
0.0%
203
3,500,139
3,499,937
0.0%
206,157
(2,705,139)
(2,911,296)
(7.6%)
As of 1011412010 Page 7 of 11
LAKEOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
ENGINEERING FUND
FY 2009-10
ACTUALYTD
ACTUAL
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
BUDGET BALANCE
% of BUDGET
MAINT SVC & MOTOR POOL
Revenues
Revenues
Intergovernmental
0
0
0
0
Licenses and Fees
0
0
0
0
NaN
Miscellaneous Revenues
12,468
25,713
220,000
194,287
11.7%
Other Financing Sources
120,985
255,975
1,202,000
946,025
21.3%
Total Revenues
133,453
281,688
1,422,000
1,140,312
19.8%
Expenditures
Expenditures
Personal Services
208,213
209,119
844,000
634,881
24.8%
Materials and Services
18,366
10,911
311,000
300,089
3.5%
Transfers to Other Funds
1,376
37,700
158,000
120,300
23.9%
Capital Outlay
13,412
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
0
0
100,000
100,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
204,636
257,730
1,413,000
1,155,270
18.2%
Revenues - Expenditures
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
i
23,957
9,000
0
266.2%
ENGINEERING FUND
Revenues
Intergovernmental
0
0
0
0
NaN
Licenses and Fees
91,988
138,841
475,000
336,159
29.2%
Miscellaneous Revenues
379
247
6,000
6,247
4.1%
Other Financing Sources
455,991
639,289
2,557,000
1,917,711
25.0%
Total Revenues
548,357
777,883
3,038,000
2,260,117
25.6%
Expenditures
Personal Services
553,709
575,232
2,093,000
1,517,768
27.5%
Materials and Services
33,421
17,814
324.000
306,186
5.5%
Transfers to Other Funds
66,798
119,414
476,000
356,586
25.1%
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
0
0
145,000
145,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
653,929
712,460
3,038,000
2,325,540
23.5%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(105,571)
65,423
0
-Infinity
As of 1011412010 Page 8 of 11
LMGOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
LO - TIGARD WTR SUPPLY
0.5%
17.1%
0.7%
Revenues
0.0%
Property Taxes
13,605
Revenues
22,713
Total Revenues
36,318
Expenditures
Intergovernmental
0
1,316,031
5,042,000
3,725,969
26.1%
Licenses and Fees
0
162,444
0
162,444
-Infinity
Sales and Services
0
2,385
10,000
7,615
23.9%
Miscellaneous Revenues
24
4,840
18,000
13,160
26.9%
Other Financing Sources
0
1,018,003
4,072,000
3,053,997
25.0%
Total Revenues
24
2,503,703
9,142,000
6,638,297
27.4%
Expenditures
Personal Services
32,793
84,506
459,000
374,494
18.4%
Materials and Services
18,852
9,781
104,000
94,219
9.4%
Transfers to Other Funds
25,158
23,880
91,000
67,120
26.2%
Capital Outlay
0
1,324,195
8,120,000
6,795,805
16.3%
Contingency
0
0
1,045,000
1.045,000
0.0%
Total Expenditures
76,803
1,442,361
9,819,000
8,376,639
14.7%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(76,827)
1,061,342
(677,000)
(1,738,342)
(156.8%)
BONDED DEBT SERVICE
0.5%
17.1%
0.7%
Revenues
0.0%
Property Taxes
13,605
Miscellaneous Revenues
22,713
Total Revenues
36,318
Expenditures
Debt Service
0
Total Expenditures
0
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
36,318
16,041
8,213
Q
3,223,000
48,000
3,271,000
3,338,000
24,254 (67,000)
3,206,959
39,787
3,246,746
0.5%
17.1%
0.7%
3,338,000
0.0%
3,338,000
0.0%
(91,254)
(36.2%)
As of 1011412010 Page 9 of 11
LAICEOSWEGO
City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison
by Department
September 30, 2010
- (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11
YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTD
ACTUAL
BUDGET
BALANCE
% of BUDGET
ASSESSMENT PROJECT FUND
Revenues
Licenses and Fees
0
0
0
0
NaN
Special Assessments
26,354
4,894
37,000
32,106
13.2%
Miscellaneous Revenues
565
330
1,000
670
33.0%
Total Revenues
26,919
5,224
38,000
32,776
13.7%
Expenditures
Capital Outlay
4,144
274
63,000
62,726
0.4%
Contingency
0
0
18,307
18,307
0.0%
Total Expenditures
4,144
274
81,307
81,033
0.3%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
22,774
4,951
(43,307)
(48,258)
(11.4%)
BICYCLE PATH FUND
Revenues
Intergovernmental
2,101
2,712
18,000
15,288
15.1%
Miscellaneous Revenues
553
307
1,000
693
30.7%
Total Revenues
2,654
3,019
19,000
15,981
15.9%
Expenditures
Capital Outlay
0
1,561
105,776
104.215
1.5%
Total Expenditures
0
1,561
105,776
104,215
1.5%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
2,654
1,458
(86,776)
(88,234)
(1.7%)
LORA BONDED DEBT SERVICE
Revenues
Property Taxes
14,615
16,556
3,106,000
3,089,444
0.5%
Miscellaneous Revenues
20,293
23,475
46,000
22,525
51.0%
Total Revenues
34,908
40,031
3,152,000
3,111,969
1.3%
Expenditures
Debt Service
213,346
185,069
1,748,000
1,562,931
10.6%
Transfers to Other Funds
0
489,931
1,959,721
1,469,790
25.0%
Contingency
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Expenditures
213,346
675,000
3,707,721
3,032,721
18.2%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(178,438)
(634,969)
(555,721)
79,248
114.3%
As of 1011412010 Page 10 of 11
LA.I(EOSWEGO City of Lake Oswego
Centennial 1910-2010
Budget Comparison by Department
September 30, 2010 - (25.0% of Budget)
Fiscal Year 2010-11 YTD
FY 2009-10
ACTUAL YTC
ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % of BUDGET
LORA CAPITAL PROJECTS
Revenues
Sales and Services
0
0
0
0
NaN
Miscellaneous Revenues
78,827
38,865
142,000
103,135
27.4%
Other Financing Sources
0
489,931
1,959,721
1,469,790
25.0%
Total Revenues
78,827
528,796
2,101,721
1,572,925
25.2%
Expenditures
Materials and Services
140,996
181,574
1,635,000
1,453,426
11.1%
Other Financing Uses
0
0
0
0
NaN
Capital Outlay
77,888
20,246
2,070,000
2,049,754
1.0%
Total Expenditures
218,884
201,820
3,705,000
3,503,180
5.4%
Revenues - Expenditures
= Surplus (Deficit)
(140,057)
326,976
(1,603,279)
(1,930,255)
(20.4%)
As of 1011412010 Page 11 of 11
0
0
o
C)
Ln
L
Qi
r o
M
V)
U
N
�O 8
L c
a
N
Y
A� O
W
CM
N
CL
Vo
L
L N
L-
m m
:(
V
}� o
� o
L
LL
T-4
P'I
1
Jo a
�1 O
O
LL
u� �e
I
N
t
v
d
c
i
>
c«
u
`w
c
>
a c
E W
DO
c
p
c_
E
m
3
o
3w
3
E
m m
00
¢ -
o a
V
a
z
m
e
s
a
�
v
y
?
w
m
a
¢
u
c v
4
d
c
~
a
c
to
E
w
�
n
�
w
r
c
't
H
Q1
v
E
7
c
W
Q
x
W
N
11O
7
CO
0
O
0
N_
In
N
O
r
S
0
s
8
N
N
S
O
O
O
N
pO
1D
N
N
m
y a
m
a 7
S O
O O
E
v
n
w E
a m
r m
« a
w d
v
¢
w
d
3
O
3
3
> E
�
m
3
3
3
0
O
¢
'
°1
IF
O
o
E
D
}r
'�
i.
N
'
a p
�
Z
�
u
3
3
3
�
3
d
3
m
3
N
m
Qi
E
u
U
c
LU
v
Q
x
W
v
v
to
v
m
■
0
0
N
LO
Q
O
m
y a
m
a 7
S O
O O
Yq
v
n
w E
a m
r m
« a
¢ O
v
N m
A o
d "
�
m
3
3
3
0
m
Qi
E
u
U
c
LU
v
Q
x
W
v
v
to
v
m
■
0
0
N
LO
Q
O
w
D
0
W
U
N
H
W
.7
I.L
Q
W
O
a
O
U
N
W
U_
W
N
z
O
H
N
z
O
U
0
z_
FX
W
W
Z
U'
z
W
r
r
O
N
w
W
W
0
O
F-
0
r
O
N
J
D
a
iii
c
U
m
�
°
O
U
U
°
a
O
U
o
c
U
a
m
c
O
c
c
N
2 o
c
c
0)
a�
U
-�
C
N
N
]
a
C N
O °
Q
U U
o
o
a
Q
Q- -F 0
U
ff
rell
WA
O
0
N
0
N
O
N
N
N
T)
U70
(a
> m
U
ca
m
O
a)
O
C
Q
O
M
U
C
O
Q
C
o
L
a)
C
U
-
U_
C
fa
cn
Z
Q
O
X
a)
N
C Ecn
W
U).�
a)
()
mU
o
O a)
ca
C
C
_° N
U
-_
c_
`�-
G
U
fa
'-'
O
C
,�
. r
N
0
O
,O
p
O
`
O
O
O U
o
UL)
C
�. -a
0)
c
c
E
L O
n
L L
a
.�
: ca
�-
0
U
ch
>
�
U
-0�
cn
c
E cGa
"-
O
W
H
W
H
�=
O p
N N
(a N
W
H
W
H
rn
0
- L
W
H
0
N U
O O
U
w U
~
.-
w
w
a m
u, a)
L
a)
>
w
ui
C
w
a
a) -c.
w co
C
J
a
J
s
_ 0-0
ca o
a)
�
p
J
a
J_
a
ca
'�
F-
J
a
U -0
. a)
N (n
J .�
a L
C13
O
O
C C.�
ca
c�
0
0
C p
�
O
c o p
0
0 "-
`La
U
U
Q ca
LL ul
10
Fu
ol
U
Q 5,
O ca
U
ID
c
a
c)
o
O
o
Z
J
=
O
a
U
o
O
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
OU
U
w
U)
¢
U
U
OU
U
U
U
Q
OU
U
U
�
O
L
N
U
Q
U
U
U
a
Q
Q
U
U
C)
U
U
U-
¢
OU
Q
Q
U
<
0
U
U
U
LU
OU
0
Q
U
U
Q
LU
U
0
0
U
0
Q
Q
0
o
Q
o
a
o
0
0
0
o
z
Q
U
D
D
U
OU
U
00
0
N�
O
Q
O
O
U
d
d
O
O
Q
OU
D
U
U
U
Q
O
U
U
a)
cn
a
�
a,
L
C
L
a)
UU)
c
U
I..L
o
U
m
L
fn
a)
N
0
U
O
O
N
E
—
cn
C
m
N
a)
)
—
o
Y
ca
U
C
O
��
O
a)
CW
c
a
Q)
c?
O
a)
a
L
a)
�,
a)
o�
(�
(a
Q
a
"
a)
U
U
z
o
cn
a)
Y
c
a
a
s
`a
Cl
E
U
Ln
L
Q
N
L
a
W
is
m
U
W
L
c
o
3
a)
Q'
LL
cA
a)
a)
a
c
ca
W
a)
CL
L
a)_
to
(n
O
O
o
U)
a)
a)
"
m
�.
m
a
�'
L
E
>
L
a)
)
a)
a
c
t
C)
a)
�
m
�
n
d
m
0
m
0
cn
c
a
a
d
3
ca
N0.
c
d
N
CL
N
a
H
N
a)
U
—
O
E
z
L
is
a)
w
L
—
fA
L
U
a)
v
a
s
W
o
O
_p
H
ca
_�
U
c
�
U
-a
a s
a)
o
c
(�
U
a
W
o
O
L
L
~
I-'
Q
C
Q
o
L a
a)
A •L-
E
>
N
W
7
a)
C
a)
O
cn
C
O
O
m
a)
o
a
L
U
>
0
a)
C
O
m ca
;.
CO
O
Q" _
C
m
c
dL
`o
c�a
W
O
in
W
O
:
ca
ao
o
> a)
U
C
o
- LM�
cn
�
a
°
O
—
ani
N
o
U
e
o
r
d
°
a) Y
U)
=
V-
a)
�
ca
-O 0
U
C
p,
c
Ya)
p
T
o
o
a)
Q
m
a ca
>i
O
O
o—
o
L
o
a) >
aa))
a)
a)
-O
W
H
Q
(7
LL
=
a'
U
=
U-
J
LL
O
z
J
N
N
a p
Y
a'
a o
N
Q
a0
a0
a0
O
C
M
V
d
�-
Q
Q 4]
M-
O
O
O
co L
U
U) •-
O
�
O
E
a)
p
Q
M
d'
O
C.
CO
0
w
C)
�-
M
M
O
L
to
co
�
Ln
cfl
H
Q W
�-
M
cn
q
a
O't
�
0
O —
w
—
N
N
M
.
rell
WA
O
0
N
0
N
O
W
J
W
U
U)
F-
0 W
n
w
a..
W
I --
U) U)
O
a
O
U
W
W
U)
Z
O
H
U
D
w
N
Z
O
U
C7
Z_
R
W
W
Z_
a
Z
W
r
r
O
N
w
W
W
0
O
H
0
0
N
J
w
I
O
O
N
00
N
O
o
0
0
E
o
O
CV U
C
a)
a)
O O
N O
N
O
E
EC
i
O
O
O
N
U)
Q O
O N
O
O
O
N La
(L)
Z
d
d
O NLLJ
�•
U
m^ +--
O
CZ a%
CLL
^O
U
O
C-)
cr
O
O
fII U
U
L .Lcn
Z-
O
C2
O
CL
(6 O
N
O=
OU
�e
V
�e
V
:II
Z
L
a)
O
L
0c:
L
N a)
C:o�
O
cam
N
CV
o
U
Q
z
U
Q
O
p
O
p
w
¢
OU
p
U
p
O
U
U
p
O
U
O
U
O
U
L)
Lij�
N
O
OU
U
Q
U
U
OU
Q
OU
U
Q
U
U
U
LL
w
U-
2
U
U
Q
U
U
U
U
Q
U
Q
LU
U
Q
a
U
Q
p
Q
o
U
p
U
Q
p
Cf
a
z
Q
p
U
p
a
Q
o
p
p
Q
p
a
0
0
NUJ
p
p
Q
p
Q
p
p
p
a
p
a�
N
f0
2
�
a)
N
C:
O
N
W
O
i
O
C/)
2
m
a)
Q)
�>
p
N=
c
O
Q_0
N
>
C
N
U
N
E
(Q
U
H
C
p
N
v
H
(n
a)
>
°
U
W
.°
"-
H
a�
ca
U
N
v
w
o
J
Y
m
a)
m
O
U) N
W
n
cB
m
a�
O
w
c
C-6"
p
0)
a
a
a)
°
a
L
cn
N
aE
m
d
d
E
d
a
d
cn
M°
d~
a�
o
N
O
U
ca
ca
~-
O
W
'
!
L
a)
L
N a)
W
W
�
>
:6
�=
H
Q�
t
U-
��
Z
Q
O
J
O
oDL
a) .L
�
a
>.
D o
J
a
ami
w
cn
d
a)
U=
Q
O
z
U
a)
f N
Cl)
Q
�
00
CA
p
in
CA
CO
�
�CN
c"I
U
o
d
w
I
O
O
N
00
N
O
4. f .1
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OsWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Resignation from the Historic Resources Advisory Board
DATE: October 21, 2010
ACTION
Accept the resignation of Marylou Colver from the Historic Resources Advisory Board.
Reviewed by:
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
380 AAvenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Youth Members on Advisory Boards appointments
DATE: October 14, 2010
ACTION
q.2./
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Adopt Resolution 10-63, approving appointments of Youth Members on Advisory Boards.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.onus
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Moncrieff and Vizzini, met on October 13,
2010, to interview youth candidates for Advisory Board. It was the consensus of the Interview Committee
to recommend that the following youth be appointed for terms ending August 31, 2011: Kevin O'Leary to
the Library Advisory Board; Josh Nudelman to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board; Madeline Brewster
to the Historic Resources Advisory Board; Kavita Rajani to the Transportation Advisory Board; and Stephani
Wax to the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-63
Reviewed by;
City Attorney
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
McGarvin, Jane
From:
McGarvin, Jane
Sent:
Friday, October 15, 2010 8:20 AM
To:
McGarvin, Jane
Subject:
FW: Resignation
October 14, 2010
Jeannie McGuire
Chair, Historic Resources Advisory Board City of Lake Oswego
Dear Jeannie,
Please accept my resignation from the City of Lake Oswego's Historic Resources Advisory
Board, effective immediately.
As promised, I will write the "Hello LO" insert for May 2011, National Historic Preservation
Month. I will also continue to work towards Lake Oswego's inclusion in the Willamette Falls
Heritage Area.
Best,
Marylou
Cc: Councilor Mary Olson, Council Liaison
Paul Espe, Staff Liaison
1
RESOLUTION 10-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING YOUTH
APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BOARDS
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Moncrieff and Vizzini,
met on October 13, 2010, to interview youth candidates for appointment to Advisory Boards;
and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that the following
youth members be appointed to terms ending August 31, 2011: Kevin O'Leary to the Library
Advisory Board; Josh Nudelman to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board; Madeline Brewster
to the Historic Resources Advisory Board; Kavita Rajani to the Transportation Advisory Board;
and Stephani Wax to the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointments recommended by the Interview
Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego approves
the appointment of the following youth members to terms ending August 31, 2011: Kevin
O'Leary to the Library Advisory Board; Josh Nudelman to the Parks & Recreation Advisory
Board; Madeline Brewster to the Historic Resources Advisory Board; Kavita Rajani to the
Transportation Advisory Board; and Stephani Wax to the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting
held on the 2nd day of November, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
AP �EOVED AS TO F
David Powell, City Attor ey
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
�L
FROM: David Donaldson, Assistant City ManagerX
a{. 2 Z
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-64, establishing commercial food waste collection rates for Allied Waste of
Lake Oswego
DATE: October 22, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-64, establishing commercial food waste collection rates for Allied Waste of Lake
Oswego.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On September 28, 2010, staff made a presentation with representatives of Allied Waste, to the City Council
on a proposed commercial food waste recycling program. Part of that presentation included a
recommendation to return to the Council on November 2, 2010 with a resolution to establish rates for
commercial food waste pickup which would result in a 4% decrease in rates for commercial customers to
encourage their participation in the program.
DISCUSSION
Attached you will find a brief overview of the proposed commercial food waste recycling program including
issues related to start up, outreach, equipment and routing. In addition, you will find two sheets with the
newly established rates. The first includes highlights of the program, while the second is purely rates and
compares the new rates with existing rates so you can see where the differences (4% reduction) are
targeted. Focus on three rates: the 95 -gallon cart, and the 1.5 and 2.0 -yard containers. For example, a
95 -gallon cart that is collected twice a week goes from $74.54 weekly to $71.55 and the 1.5 -yard container
twice a week rate moves from $278.15 to $267.02. Additional savings may be realized by allowing
businesses to reduce the size of their remaining commercial non-food waste containers.
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
There would be a negligible impact in the franchise fee collected by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council adopt Resolution 10-64, establishing commercial food waste collection
rates for Allied Waste of Lake Oswego.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Overview of commercial food waste program by Allied Waste Services of Lake Oswego
2. New Commercial Food Waste Collection Rates
3. Resolution 10-64
RLewed b
D partment Director
Fina ce Directgr / 7
Services of Lake
Allied Waste (AW) is pleased to introduce a commercial food waste collection program to the City of
Lake Oswego. As a leader in solid waste and recycling industry we are excited to offer an additional
service to our commercial customers who generate food waste as a part of their business or
operation. These customers will now have the opportunity to divert their organic food waste from the
traditional landfill bound trash and have it collected separately, at a reduced rate, and sent to Allied
Wastes Pacific Region Composting (PRC) facility where it will be processed for reuse. The following is
a brief description of the process and planned operations techniques to be employed in the program.
Start Up - The program is planned to begin this November. Key to the programs success is a very
deliberate outreach and education approach targeting the commercial establishments in the
community that AW has been contacted by or determined would be good candidates for food waste
recycling. Initially we will limit our outreach and collection efforts to the commercial establishments
along the Boones Ferry and Kruse Way corridors. In the interest of sustainability we will be
incorporating an existing food waste route from a sister AW division which travels the 1-5 corridor. All
customer services and outreach for this program will come from the staff of Allied Waste of Lake
Oswego.
Outreach — Information will be presented to the customer base in the initial target area to introduce
the program and develop interest. AW operations and outreach staff will conduct field visits to the
individual establishments who have expressed interest or have been targeted as potential candidates.
The field visit will assess the establishments operation, current service level and infrastructure to
determine what the best course of action is for the individual location. When a customer decides to
begin food waste collections, on site education will be presented by the operations and outreach team
of AW to the staff of the participating customer. This effort is essential in mitigating contamination and
creating a positive systems change at the customers' site.
Equipment — To start we will be utilizing a rear loading truck capable of collecting various roll cart
sizes and small 1 — 2 yard containers. We plan to begin most collection applications in 95 gallon roll
carts. These will provide a higher degree of flexibility when right sizing the customers' needs. As the
program evolves with larger generators, an increased number of containers may become necessary
to accommodate the customers' needs.
Routing — The current route in operation will provide collections on Tuesday and Friday and will exit
1-5 at Boones Ferry and travel towards Mercantile Village then enter back on 1-5 from Kruse Way.
This route will come through the Boones Ferry and Kruse Way corridors very early in the AM. Every
effort will be made to keep noise to a minimum and stay away from any residential areas. We
anticipate within several months of start up, customer needs and volume will drive the expansion of
the route into the remainder of the City. At this point AW will reevaluate what assets are needed for
the collection operation and develop routes accordingly. We believe this approach best meets the
sustainability goals of the city by limiting under utilized assets upon start up.
Again, Allied Waste is pleased and excited to offer a food waste collection option to the commercial
waste generators of Lake Oswego. The program has the potential of diverting substantial quantities of
waste to reuse that would otherwise be landfill bound, and in many cases save the customer money
on their waste collection bill. Combined this is yet another step towards our common goal of
environmental and economic sustainability.
Services of Lake Oswego
New Commercial Food Waste Collection
Proposed Food Waste Collection Rates
Commercial Food Waste Collection Highlights
❑ Program begins November 2010.
❑ Food Waste collection rates are 4% below existing garbage rates.
❑ Commercial customers have the opportunity to divert their organic food waste from the
traditional landfill bound trash.
❑ Food Waste is composted for reuse at Allied Wastes Pacific Region Composting (PRC)
facility.
❑ Allied Waste of Lake Oswego provides operations and outreach staff conducts field visits to
evaluate and develop plans at individual establishments that have expressed interest or are
targeted as potential program candidates.
❑ Allied Waste of Lake Oswego outreach staff will conduct education and training for managers
and staff at customer locations.
❑ 95 gallon roll carts, 1.5 and 2 yard containers used in collections.
❑ Participation and volumes will drive program expansion.
Services/Week
Type Size
1
2
3
4
5
Carts
95g
35.77
71.55
107.32
143.08
-
addtl
cart
29.33
58.67
88.00
117.33
-
1.50y
138.71
267.02
395.32
523.65
651.97
addtl
Container
cont
113.74
218.96
324.16
429.39
534.62
2.00y
173.34
336.28
499.21
662.16
825.11
addtl
cont
142.14
275.75
409.35
542.97
676.59
Commercial Food Waste Collection Highlights
❑ Program begins November 2010.
❑ Food Waste collection rates are 4% below existing garbage rates.
❑ Commercial customers have the opportunity to divert their organic food waste from the
traditional landfill bound trash.
❑ Food Waste is composted for reuse at Allied Wastes Pacific Region Composting (PRC)
facility.
❑ Allied Waste of Lake Oswego provides operations and outreach staff conducts field visits to
evaluate and develop plans at individual establishments that have expressed interest or are
targeted as potential program candidates.
❑ Allied Waste of Lake Oswego outreach staff will conduct education and training for managers
and staff at customer locations.
❑ 95 gallon roll carts, 1.5 and 2 yard containers used in collections.
❑ Participation and volumes will drive program expansion.
RESOLUTION 10-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE COLLECTION RATES FOR ALLIED WASTE OF
LAKE OSWEGO
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2391, granting
Rossman's Sanitary Service, Inc., now doing business under the assumed business name of Allied
Waste of Lake Oswego, hereinafter referred to as "Franchisee", an exclusive franchise to collect
solid waste within the City and reserved to the City the right to modify by resolution the schedule
of rates, and
WHEREAS, the City Council would like to promote the collection of commercial food waste to
reduce the impact of garbage on landfills and to promote sustainable practices and the creation
of reusable compost, and
WHEREAS, LOC 20.10.720 and Ordinance No. 2391 provide that rates charged for solid waste
collection may be amended by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has given careful consideration to the interests of the public and the
Franchisee alike, and concludes that rates for commercial food waste collection should be
established at amounts that are four percent less than current standard commercial rates;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon that:
Effective November 2, 2010, commercial rates for food waste collection shall be as shown on
attached Exhibit A for 95 gallon carts and 1.5 and 2.0 yard containers.
This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the 2nd day of November, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Resolution 10-64
Page 1 of 2
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS T M:
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-64
Page 2 of 2
� ALLIED
M
WASTE
New Commercial Food Waste Collection
Proposed Food Waste Collection Rates
Reference
Exhisting commercial rates for standard garbage collections
Type Size
r-1
ServicesMeek
2 3
ServiceslWeek
5
Type
Size
1
2
3
4
5
35g
23.52
47.06
70.57
-
-
Carts
Carts
95g
35.77
71.55
107.32
143.08
-
60g
addtl cart
29.33
58.67
88.00
117.33
-
95g
1.50y
138.71
267.02
395.32
523.65
651.97
addtl cont
113.74
218.96
324.16
429.39
534.62
`Container
128.71
245.62
360.29
567.14
579.01
1.50y
2.00y
173.34
336.28
499.21
662.16
825.11
2.00y
addt/ cont
142.14
275.75
409.35
542.97
676.59
Reference
Exhisting commercial rates for standard garbage collections
Type Size
r-1
ServicesMeek
2 3
4
5
20g
15.42
-
-
-
-
35g
23.52
47.06
70.57
-
-
Carts
60g
35.04
70.06
105.06
-
-
95g
37.26
74.53
111.79
-
-
1.33y
128.71
245.62
360.29
567.14
579.01
1.50y
144.49
278.15
411.79
545.47
679.14
2.00y
180.56
350.29
520.01
689.75
859.49
Container ,
3.00y
238.59
459.77
680.94
902.13
1,123.30
4.00y
299.69
581.94
864.20
1,146.46
1,428.74
6.00y
375.77
733.88
1,091.95
1,450.05
1,808.14
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennia11910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments
DATE: October 28, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-66, making appointments to the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
4-1.2.2,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Tierney and Jordan, and Julia Glisson, Vice -
Chair of the Planning Commission, interviewed candidates on June 12 and 14, 2010. At the conclusion of
the June 14 deliberation, the recommendation was to re -appoint Russell Jones for a four year term ending
May 31, 2014, and to continue recruitment for additional applicants.
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff, and Julia Glisson,
Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission, interviewed additional candidates on October 27, 2010. The
Committee recommends that Puja Bhutani be appointed to the Planning Commission for a four-year term
ending May 31, 2014; to appoint Todd Prager to the remainder of a term ending May 31, 2011; and to
designate Ryan Flynn as alternate to be appointed should there be a vacancy due to attrition through
April 30, 2011.
1. Resolution 10-66.
Reviewed by
Alex D. Mclnt
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Tierney and Jordan,
and Julia Glisson, Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission, met on June 12 and 14, 2010, to
interview candidates for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, the Council reappointed Russell Jones to a four year term
ending May 31, 2014, and further directed that recruitment be continued for additional
applicants, and
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff,
and Julia Glisson, Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission, met on October 27, 2010, to interview
additional candidates for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Puja Bhutani
be appointed to the Planning Commission for a four-year term ending May 31, 2014, that Todd
Prager be appointed to the Planning Commission for the remainder of a four year term ending
May 31, 2011; and that Ryan Flynn be appointed as alternate to the Planning Commission
should there be a vacancy through April 30, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointment recommended by the Interview Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego approves
the appointment of Puja Bhutani to the Planning Commission for a four-year term ending May
31, 2014; that Todd Prager be appointed to the Planning Commission for the remainder of a
four-year term ending May 31, 2011; and approves the appoint of Ryan Flynn as alternate on
the Planning Commission should there be vacancies through April 30, 2011.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held
on the 2nd day of November, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
AP �VED ACTO O
t1 \
YDavid Powell, pity Attorney
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
DATE: October 21, 2010
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
• March 23, 2010, regular meeting
• June 22, 2010, special meeting
• June 23, 2010, special meeting
• September 28, 2010, special meeting
Reviewed by:
Alex D. M clnt
City Manager
/,/.3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
LkK[.(NIA Lik) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
March 23, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on March
23, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff (7:47 by
phone), Tierney, and Jordan
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital
Development; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Director; Christine
Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Brad Stein, Management Analyst
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 WaterAfrica Proclamation
Linda Favero, 5831 Ridgetop Court, and Bill Savage, 4804 Heritage Lane, were present
Ms. Favero indicated that WaterAfrica was a small non-profit that started last fall. She expressed
their appreciation for the Council's support of the Walk for Water as a community effort. She
explained that the people of Zambia considered this sort of formal procedure as a great honor.
She described their trip to Zambia in October 2008, mentioning in particular a woman walking six
to eight hours a day to obtain contaminated water that she knew would only make her children
worse (they were already ill from water -borne illnesses), but she had no alternative. She reported
that the one well (purchased by WaterAfrica and serving 800 people in a village) has cut the
mortality rate in half. In addition, children were back in school and the villagers could grow crops
for consumption and sale.
She mentioned that a number of Lake Oswego businesses were sponsoring this third year of the
Walk for Water, through which they hoped to raise $24,000 to fund two more wells and sanitation
education in Zambia. She described the simulation walk that would begin in Foothills Park this
year, walk to collect water from the lake, and return. She said that visitors from Zambia would be
present, as well as a water specialist from World Vision.
She invited the Council to send someone to make comments at the event. She closed with a
quote from President Obama's inaugural speech regarding working with other nations.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the walk began at 9 a.m. on Saturday, April 17. Mayor
Hoffman indicated that someone from the City Council would read the proclamation at the event.
Mayor Hoffman proclaimed Saturday, April 17, 2010, as WaterAfrica Day in Lake Oswego.
Councilor Hennagin applauded their work. He mentioned that he had been in Tanzania in
October 2008 on behalf of Africa Bridge, which also tried to bring water to villages. He suggested
that WaterAfrica, Africa Bridge, and Pennies for Kenya (since all three were headquartered in Lake
Oswego or West Linn) get together under one administrative office for greater effectiveness. Mr.
Savage commented that Councilor Hennagin's point was well taken.
3.2 Streetcar Update
Mr. Williams introduced Karen Withrow, Metro Public Involvement Manager, who was a key
individual working on the Lake Oswego to Portland transit project. He commented that the project
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11
March 23, 2010
team members and consultants have accomplished a great deal this past year in coming together
to work on the different alternatives.
He gave a PowerPoint presentation. He presented a list of the various agencies involved in this
project to improve the transit capacity on Hwy 43 between Lake Oswego and Portland. He noted
that they were in the middle of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and looking at the
three proposed alternatives: no build, enhanced bus service, and streetcar.
He explained that the streetcar alternative was an extension of the Portland Streetcar south from
downtown Portland. He reviewed its current route loop from northwest Portland, through the Pearl
District, downtown Portland, PSU, and River place, ending at the South Waterfront. He
commented that the intent was to provide a seamless extension of this first modern (and very
successful) streetcar system in the U.S. from the South Waterfront to Lake Oswego. He stated
that the Portland to Lake Oswego segment was not a separate line from the Portland Streetcar.
He reviewed the three alternatives. He described the benefits of the enhanced bus service,
including improved travel times with a reduced number of stops, more frequent bus service, and
park and rides. He indicated that the benefits of the streetcar were its greater reliability (it operated
on its own alignment — the Willamette Shoreline) and the development potential it offered in
Foothills, downtown Lake Oswego, and Portland.
He described a third benefit of the streetcar related to project funding. The Consortium could use
the much increased value of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way (from $2 million at the time of
purchase) to offset the local match.
He explained that the no build alternative maintained the existing transit services and facilities, and
looked at the modest improvements that would occur over time without enhanced bus or streetcar.
He explained that the NEEPA Act required a no build alternative, which the project team used as a
baseline of comparison for the other two alternatives.
He mentioned the issues considered in the DEIS, including all the human and natural
environmental impacts of each of the alternatives, the benefits, the costs, and the funding sources.
He explained that the DEIS would not be ready for public review until after the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) approved it.
He indicated that they had different design alternatives for the streetcar alternative, as it was more
complex than the other two alternatives. He mentioned that Ms. Withrow has met with LONAC and
neighborhood associations to present this information.
Ms. Withrow presented a graphic showing the routes through the six -mile corridor for the
enhanced bus and streetcar alternatives. She noted that the enhanced bus would keep the current
Lake Oswego downtown loop with stops at Safeway and ending at Albertson's.
She presented the five streetcar design options. She mentioned that design options A, C, and E
were associated with other projects going on in the area, while options B and D showed alignments
close to residences.
She indicated what the streetcar alignment would look like if the City of Portland extended the
Moody and Bond couplet in the South Waterfront, and if it did not (Option A). She described the
three alignment alternatives in the John's Landing area (Option B). She commented that staff was
also looking at the impact on the streetcar of the west interchange phase of the Sellwood Bridge
project, both if that phase went through and if it did not (Option C). She noted the alignment of the
streetcar line in the Riverdale area on Riverwood Road, as suggested by the neighbors (Option D).
She presented the two possible alignments in the Foothills District (Option E), with one running
adjacent to the freight rail line and one running through a new right-of-way, and both ending at the
Albertson's 300 -space park and ride. .
She explained that the DEIS was the FTA's document, and they could not present it for public
review until the FTA gave permission to do so. She anticipated the 45 -day public review period
beginning in mid-August. She indicated that staff would summarize the public comment received
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11
March 23, 2010
during that outreach (including at the public hearing) into a report for the Steering Committee. She
described the decision-making process on the locally preferred alternative (LPA), beginning with
separate recommendations to the Steering Committee by the project management group and the
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the Steering Committee recommendation, the local
jurisdictions' approval, and final approval by the Metro Council.
She reviewed the schedule, noting that the decision-making on the LPA would occur in the fall.
She anticipated preliminary engineering and the final environmental impact statement in 2011,
followed by a full funding grant agreement, final engineering, and construction. She noted the
target operation date of 2016.
Mr. Williams discussed the issues recently raised regarding the streetcar. He reported that the
project was on budget for the first cost component of the current staff work and the loan to TriMet.
He explained that the DEIS evaluated the other two cost components of construction costs and
operating costs. He indicated that the $350 million estimate represented the value of the project
more than it did the actual cost. In addition to including the construction, design, and vehicle
purchase costs, it included the value of the right-of-way. He noted that the most recent appraisal
of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way returned a value in the $80 million to $100 million range.
He mentioned staff's hope to have more accurate numbers on the capital side this summer,
developed as part of the DEIS.
He noted the assumption that TriMet would take care of the operating costs of both the enhanced
bus service and the streetcar. Staff was working on those numbers for inclusion in the DEIS.
He referenced the concern about how Lake Oswego would pay for its share of funding the project.
He reiterated that the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way would make up most of the local match;
staff was working on how to allocate the remainder of the local match appropriately to the
participating jurisdictions.
He mentioned their working assumption that the development in the Foothills area and continued
redevelopment in the Downtown would cover almost the entire cost assigned to the City of Lake
Oswego. He said that he was developing alternatives for Council on the numbers.
He discussed the transfers question. He pointed out that transfers depended on where one was
coming from and where one was going to. He indicated that the project was taking a look at how
transfers would occur with the two different alternatives in comparison with the existing service
from the #35 bus. He reported that staff's initial look at the issue found that the two alternatives
covered most of the Portland downtown entertainment and employment areas. He noted that the
benefit of the streetcar was its extension into the Pearl District and NW Portland.
Ms. Withrow described the proposed extension of the streetcar across the Willamette River over
the Broadway Bridge and down to OMSI. She mentioned that Metro was still looking for funding to
complete the piece from OMSI across the proposed Milwaukie Bridge and into the South
Waterfront.
Mr. Williams reported that staff met with the affected neighborhood associations (Lakewood, Old
Town, and Evergreen). The neighborhoods' concerns focused on the park and ride, its structure,
and its impact on traffic and parking in the neighborhoods. He indicated that the City had the
means to minimize any impacts. He said that staff would check with the neighborhoods to see that
the park and ride structure design worked well for them and minimized, if not eliminated,
neighborhood impacts. He reviewed the membership of the nine -member volunteer Citizen Action
Committee, chaired by Ellie McPeak with representatives from the neighborhoods and business
community.
He mentioned the upcoming Council tour of the streetcar alignment in May
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11
March 23, 2010
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Ms. Withrow confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that Union Pacific retained ownership of the
railroad freight line right-of-way and leased it to Western Pacific.
Councilor Olson referenced the articles in the press lately reporting that the WES rider ship was
less than expected, and that the federal government has been skeptical of TriMet's rider ship
projections in the past. She asked if staff has revisited its rider ship projections for the streetcar.
Mr. Williams reported that he checked with the Metro staff that did these projections, and obtained
a list of the projected and actual rider ship figures for opening day on several regional projects. He
indicated that they did not know why the WES projections were off, but the projections for other
projects in the region have been impressively almost right on. He explained that, in the aggregate,
the projections were 3% low, although that did not include the Portland streetcar, which saw higher
opening day rider ship than projected. He stated that, given this data, he felt comfortable that
Metro's forecasting was some of the best in the country.
Councilor Jordan asked whether the comparison costs of the alternatives in the DEIS (Draft
Environmental Impact Statement) included the differences between the streetcar running on
electricity and the enhanced bus service running on gas (or an alternate non -electric fuel) and
causing wear and tear on the asphalt.
Ms. Withrow indicated that she was not certain how detailed the greenhouse gases analysis in the
DEIS Energy section was, or whether it calculated the cost difference between the alternatives.
She commented that the process was still catching up with respect to greenhouse gas scenarios,
but there were plans to figure more detail on that factor into the analyses for future high capacity
transit corridors.
Ms. Withrow concurred with Councilor Jordan that they decided the alignment to Portland and
the mode before they did the design and engineering. They also did not yet know how it would
connect to Lake Oswego's downtown and Foothills. She explained that at this point they used a
5% design to evaluate the alternatives and alignments; that percentage would increase as they
moved forward.
Ms. Withrow clarified to Councilor Tierney that, once the jurisdictions submitted the locally
preferred alternative (LPA), they began a separate funding approval process, in which they
typically asked for 60% of the estimated costs. She indicated that this was a competitive process
for federal discretionary money allocated for transit. She said that the federal funds were not
guaranteed, although Portland has consistently received money (60% minimum) in the past for all
its projects.
Councilor Tierney commented that, given his education on development issues since being on
the Council, he was trying to rationalize a 300 -stall public parking garage in a transit -oriented
development (TOD) as a way to improve the community and generate higher property values. Mr.
Williams indicated that staff was aware of the concerns of providing up to 400 parking stalls in the
area, and intended to spend more time looking at the issue. He noted the other concerns that not
providing parking at the streetcar terminus would impact the neighborhoods. He mentioned that
the Council would likely have some policy choices to consider, given the desire to minimize the
number of stalls in the corridor.
Mr. Williams explained that the federal funding criteria has changed since they began this project;
it now included development, development potential, and livability issues, instead of relying solely
on rider ship projections. He emphasized the need to do more work in minimizing the impacts to
the City's street system and its neighborhoods.
Mayor Hoffman suggested scheduling another study session to answer additional questions
3.3 Centennial Moment
Due to time constraints, Mayor Hoffman set this item aside.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11
March 23, 2010
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Hennagin moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [6-0]
4.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.1.1 October 20, 2009, regular meeting
4.1.2 November 17, 2009, regular meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Kirk Smith
He explained that he was bringing this parking problem in his neighborhood to the Council because
he was having problems with the Planning Department regarding enforcing the condition of
approval on LU 08-0028. He explained that the condition required the contractor submit a
construction management traffic plan to the Engineering Division for review and approval, which
specially addressed parking for construction workers on Springbrook Court and adjacent streets.
He indicated that the contractor did not submit this plan, as he has informed Ms. Frisbee, the City
Attorney, the Mayor, and a Councilor.
He mentioned the e-mail he received from Ms. Frisbee, telling him that one of the conditions of
approval required the applicants to inform the Engineering Services Division on how they would
manage traffic during construction. He stated that that was not what the order or the condition of
approval said. He indicated that he was coming to his elected representatives because he has
been rebuffed by the Planning Department.
He explained that there were two issues: there was no construction traffic management plan in
place, and the contractor took down the City's No Parking signs, which he understood was an
illegal act. He alleged that the contractor took down the signs preventing parking next to the job
site because his workers were lazy. He recounted his efforts to talk to the contractor, which have
not been successful. He mentioned calling the police, who would cite any vehicle parked too close
to the intersection as being in a life safety lane. He reiterated that the contractor's workers claimed
that they could park next to the job site because nothing said that they could not park there.
However, that was because the contractor pulled the signs down.
He explained that he got upset at the workers' blocking the life safety corridor because a neighbor
was a quadriplegic and needed access to paramedics and ambulances. If a truck blocked the life
safety area, then the paramedics could not get into the neighborhood.
Mayor Hoffman directed Mr. Smith to talk to Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Director, and
David Powell, City Attorney.
Councilor Olson asked staff to inform the Council of the resolution of this situation, especially the
taking down of City signs. Mr. Powell indicated that he did not know much about the facts in this
case, but it was true that removing City signs was not legal.
Ms. Frisbee reported on her investigation into Mr. Smith's concerns. She explained that,
according to the City Attorney, the requirement for a traffic construction management plan was
triggered when the contractor intended to use part of the City right-of-way to park trucks, etc.
Since the contractor indicated in this case that he did not intend to do so, staff required no formal
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11
March 23, 2010
plan. She mentioned that the City Attorney's Office has confirmed that the documentation
submitted by the contractor did satisfy the requirement for a construction management plan.
She held that the problem was not with Planning, but rather it was an issue of enforcement. She
indicated that Nancy Flye in Traffic Services was working with Lt. Scott Thran to resolve this issue.
• R.A. Fontes, 310 Second Street
He read from his prepared testimony. He addressed the issue of streetcar travel times. He argued
that the projected streetcar travel times in combination with the proposed alignment would add half
an hour to round trips. He described Metro's numbers as pessimistic and not supported by hard
data. He spoke to setting as a minimum threshold that a project not make transit worse. He stated
his belief that the streetcar had `juggernaut' status. He supported keeping the current bus as it was
or as an express.
• Charles Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Clackamas County
He described the streetcar as a series of shell games generating many concerns. He asked what
the Council defined as `downtown Portland.' He referenced Metro's Streetcar Report (July 12,
2007) that used PSU as the target in Table 5.1. He commented that his target was Pioneer
Courthouse Square, the intersection of the four light rail lines. He indicated that the target of the
streetcar riders from Lake Oswego was the Multnomah County Central Library, five blocks away
from Pioneer Courthouse Square.
He encouraged the Council to try to get from the PSU Urban Center to the Portland City Hall in a
wheelchair, which route had roughly a 6% grade. He asked the Council to define by resolution
what constituted `downtown Portland' and what the target area was. He indicated that he would
keep asking his questions, including those sent by e-mail, until he got some answers.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 7:45 p.m. to coordinate the phone hook-up with
Councilor Moncrieff. He reconvened the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Councilor Moncrieff joined the
meeting at this time.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Street Maintenance Fee Discussion
Resolution 10-19, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council adjusting Street
Maintenance Fee rates
Resolution 10-20, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council establishing annual
indexing of Street Maintenance Fee rates
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Kirk recalled that previously staff presented to Council the funding methodology for the street
maintenance fee, the public engagement process, and the need to increase revenues in order to
keep the streets in good shape. She mentioned the request, based on feedback and Council
action, to phase the fee in over three years (25%, 35%, and 40%). She noted that this represented
increasing the investment in the roads by $1.2 million over the three years. She indicated that the
first resolution related to phasing in the increase, and the second related to indexing the street
maintenance fee.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the public hearing. He reviewed the testimony time limits and order.
• Jerry Wheeler, 13594 Blazer Trail, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive
Officer
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11
March 23, 2010
He read from his prepared testimony. He reported that the Board of Directors' vote to approve a
resolution in support of the proposed street maintenance fee increases was far from unanimous
(13 -7-1 with three members out of town). He read the resolution. He mentioned the discussion of
indexing the fee for inflation. He indicated that the Chamber supported maintaining the streets.
He spoke of the Chamber's concern that doubling the fee was not acceptable in the current
economic situation, noting the City's acceptance of their request to phase the fee in. He
mentioned the Board's continuing concern regarding not using reserves to reduce the fee increase.
Mayor Hoffman closed the public hearing.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Ms. Kirk confirmed to Councilor Olson that Chart 3 (p.49) indicated that, if the City had indexed
the fee last year, the indexing beginning in July would have decreased the fee. Mr. McIntyre
pointed out that the indices went up and down, and the Engineering News -Record index happened
to go down.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that not keeping up with City street maintenance would ultimately
lead to higher costs impacting the residents for street maintenance. She spoke in support of
indexing the fee in order to make sure that the City did the projects needing doing every year, and
that they did not fall behind again on street maintenance. She commented that once the City got
the PCI (Pavement Condition Index) back up to a 70 average, then maintaining the streets to that
level would be less expensive.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that the Council could `collar' the index to prevent it
from going too high or too low, similar to the 'collar' on labor contracts. Ms. Kirk mentioned that
the City of Tigard collared its index at 2% and 7% to prevent both a large decrease and a large
increase, which she said was a reasonable range.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that he could easily add language to the resolution to
collar the rate, should the Council decide to amend the resolution.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Hennagin observed that there was no doubt that the City's current revenues from gas
taxes or franchise fees were insufficient to maintain the streets. He cited Hemlock Street from
Cornell to Freepons Park as an example of the many streets in the city that needed reconstruction.
He mentioned his concern about asphalt costs rising astronomically again. He said that he was
impressed that two out of three members of the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee
supported a phased in increase to the fee.
He commented that, while he hated to keep raising fees, the City's number one job was to maintain
the infrastructure, and they needed to pay for it. He said that he was still constitutionally opposed
to indexing. He expressed his preference to wait on the indexing until after completing the three
year phase in. Therefore, he would vote against the indexing.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Cornelius got under the wire for raising its
gas tax to fund street maintenance. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the State legislature shut
out that option last year. Mayor Hoffman referenced an article sent by Craig Stevens discussing
considerations for a street maintenance fee.
Councilor Olson mentioned that she would like to hear the City Engineer's response to that
article. She seconded Councilor Hennagin's reluctance to index the fee. She commented that she
saw value in discussing the fee yearly or biannually in case the Council decided to change funding
sources or the PCI target.
Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 10-19, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
adjusting Street Maintenance Fee rates. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11
March 23, 2010
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan's comments. She indicated that, in light of
the current economic strains on the City's business and residential customers, she supported
phasing in the increasing over three years.
Councilor Johnson commented that if they were going to have a street maintenance fee in the
city, then they needed to do it right, which meant passing this resolution. She spoke to getting the
City back on track and adjusting the fee to achieve the Council goals. She suggested that looking
at how to alleviate the fee in the future, possibly using general fund monies, should be another
goal.
Councilor Tierney recalled that he has supported a number of fee increases for a variety of City
infrastructure and services, as they did need infrastructure. He commented that he would
challenge the City Manager's budget presentation and look at infrastructure over other possible
expenditures. He held that today was not the time to increase this fee by this magnitude. He
stated that he would not support the resolution.
Councilor Jordan commented that, while she understood the difficulties that increasing this fee
would have on Lake Oswego residents and businesses, she thought that the citizens would not
respond well to the question of what they would take away from other services in order to have
good roads. She observed that the residents moved here for all the services, and it was difficult to
separate one out from the other as more important.
She remarked that she did not believe passing this increase now prevented the Council from
revisiting it in the future. She cited the interest in pathways and bike paths that this fee did not
cover currently. She argued that not to pass this fee increase at this point would get the City so far
behind on street maintenance that people would start to complain about the quality of the City
streets. She held that the residents were willing to pay for something that they knew they needed.
Mayor Hoffman stated that he would support the motion. He commented that he did not like
raising fees either in these economic times, yet it was necessary in order to take care of the City's
road system, as John Pullen has consistently advocated. He argued that a strong infrastructure
made for a strong community, maintained property values, and helped with economic
development.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Jordan voting "aye." Councilors Olson and Tierney voted "no."
[5-2]
Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 10-20, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
establishing annual indexing of Street Maintenance Fee rates. Councilor Moncrieff
seconded the motion.
Councilor Johnson commented that one of the reasons the Council was having this discussion
was because the previous Councils did not index the fee in the first place. She argued that if they
had a fee, then they should index it. She spoke to getting the base right, which then allowed future
Councils consider creative ways to help people in these tough economic times.
Councilor Tierney asked staff why they selected the Engineering News -Record 20 city average
construction cost index. Mr. McIntyre explained that staff recommended using this index originally
because engineers used it to index a variety of other services. He described it as a reasonable
and comfortable index to use, similar to using the CPI for labor market adjustments. He indicated
that he was not qualified to answer the question of why this index went down this year when
everything else was going up.
Councilor Tierney moved to amend the resolution to establish a `collar,' that "in no event,
shall the annual index adjustment be less than a 2% increase or more than a 7% increase."
Councilor Jordan seconded the motion.
Councilor Johnson indicated that she would take the motion as a friendly amendment to her
motion. Councilor Moncrieff concurred.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11
March 23, 2010
A roll call vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." Councilors Hennagin and Olson voted "no."
[5-2]
Councilor Moncrieff left the meeting via the phone connection.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:14 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
8:15 p.m.
8. REPORTS
8.1 Resolution 10-21, adopting the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) Addendum
Mr. McIntyre introduced Brad Stein, Management Analyst, who joined the City staff to head up
the emergency management and risk management work.
Mr. Stein explained that the federal government required jurisdictions to revise and update their
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plans (NHMP) for submittal to FEMA and pre -approval prior to the
Councils adopting it. He indicated that this addendum summarized and captured all the potential
natural hazards that could adversely impact the City, its residents, and the property within. He said
that its adoption qualified the City to request pre -disaster mitigation funds for projects to counter
natural hazards, and to seek federal reimbursement after a natural hazard event occurred. He
mentioned funding for flood assistance mitigation programs and projects also.
He noted that the addendum included updated census information for Lake Oswego and updated
local hazard maps. He recommended adoption of the addendum.
Councilor Olson thanked Mr. Stein for a good report that she found helpful and informative.
Councilor Jordan moved Resolution 10-21, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
adopting the City of Lake Oswego addendum to the Clackamas County Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the
motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and
Jordan voting "aye." [6-0]
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.1.1 Councilor Jordan
Councilor Jordan reported that the voluntary watershed walk sponsored by the Friends of Tryon
Creek, which she took with a group of school children from Palisades Elementary School last
week, had been a great learning experience. She encouraged the Council members to participate
in one.
She suggested that, at a future meeting, the Council consider reducing the number of members on
the 50 plus Advisory Board from nine to seven, which was the normal number for Advisory Boards.
She indicated to Councilor Olson that the effort to combine the former Adult Community Center
Advisory Board with this new Board, following the 50 plus dialogs, probably contributed to the
larger number of members.
9.1.2 Announcements -- Mayor Hoffman
• Council tour of housing types in the greater Metro region — Sunday, May 2
• Neighbors Helping Neighbors -- May 1
• Proposed Streetcar tour — May 6
• Clackamas Cities Dinner — this Thursday night
• Stafford discussion — March 30
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11
March 23, 2010
Mayor Hoffman indicated that the discussion would focus on whether Lake Oswego should
join West Linn and assist with their pre -litigation evaluation and examination of Metro's decision
with respect to Stafford.
Mayor Hoffman reported on his meeting with 25 to 35 citizens at Chuck's Coffee Shop on
Saturday for one and a half hours. He said that he listened to their concerns and tried to address
questions. He mentioned that Councilor Olson was also there.
He reported that the Historic Resources Advisory Board, Councilor Olson, Mr. McIntyre, and he
looked at the Stone Bridge on Poplar Lane, an historic bridge built in the 1880s. He mentioned
that Carolyne Jones had more information about it.
He noted that the Council would begin its review of the Comprehensive Plan next week because of
its relevance to the budget, the sensitive lands issue, and Stafford.
9.1.3 State Statute impacting the Joint Water Project
Mayor Hoffman informed the Council that an issue has come up that affected the Joint Water
Project. Mr. Powell explained that the Department of State Lands (DSL) used to allow developers
of linear-type utilities to apply for a wetlands mitigation evaluation permit before going on a
property just to see if they could get the permit. He said that a recent Attorney General's opinion
interpreted the statute very literally in requiring the permit applicant either to own the property or to
have the property owner's consent before making application.
Mr. Powell noted the concern of municipalities that they would have to expend taxpayer resources
on a property before they even knew if they needed the property for a project. Mayor Hoffman
described how this affected the Joint Water Project, in that they were still deciding on the exact
land route; having to do wetlands mitigation on a given property could direct the route to another
property not requiring that mitigation. They did not want to have to buy a property before they
knew whether they needed it or not.
Mr. Powell mentioned that Mr. Komarek did a white paper on this issue from the municipal
perspective at the request of the League of Oregon Cities. He noted that this issue also tied into
the liquid natural gas efforts, which politicized the issue and made it controversial. He indicated
that the City's proposal in the white paper was to fix the problem for municipalities in order to avoid
expending taxpayer money acquiring interest in properties just to file an application unnecessarily.
The Council indicated by consensus that it had no objection to staff moving forward on getting this
issue cleared up for municipalities.
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
9.2.1 National League of Cities Conference
Councilor Tierney mentioned that an article he read on variables important to housing in the
future cited Gaithersburg, MD, as an example. Consequently, he, Mr. McIntyre, and Ms. Kirk
toured Gaithersburg while at the conference under the guidance of Trudy Schwartz, the
Gaithersburg Planning Director.
He indicated that Gaithersburg had a number of projects from the late 1980s into the 1990s
centered around New Urbanism, such as Kentlands and Lakelands. He referenced the booklet
that he had distributed recounting the development of Gaithersburg in the New Urbanism model
but without transit -oriented development, as it was the last stop on the Red Line in the Washington,
D.C. Metro area.
He read the characteristics of a New Urban community, as exemplified by the various projects in
Gaithersburg. He mentioned that both he and Ms. Kirk had concluded that this was a comfortable,
if not inexpensive, place to live. He presented several photos that Ms. Kirk took during the tour
illustrating the housing types, alley ways, parks, and streets in Kentlands and Lakelands. He noted
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11
March 23, 2010
that Ms. Schwartz confirmed that everything, including businesses, was within one-quarter mile of
housing.
Ms. Kirk mentioned that the walkaway for her was the neighborhood feel that the project achieved.
She described how the retail shops with housing above in the photo had a Whole Foods parking lot
on their backside, which was a creative way to put commerce opportunities within the living areas
yet mask the big box store and parking lot from the community.
Councilor Tierney presented a map showing the form zoning. He described the complementary
relationship of the walkable Main Street with its little retail shops and restaurants to the big box
shopping centers. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that light rail was 10 miles away. Ms. Kirk
mentioned the City's plans to put in a commuter rail through the area.
Councilor Tierney showed examples of parks, historic facilities, white picket fences, alleys, and
garages. He mentioned that a number of the garages required maneuvering the car in order to get
into them.
He reported that they and Chris, the Capital Edge staffer, visited the Oregon Senators' offices and
Congressman Schrader's office on Monday to meet with staff and to discuss Lake Oswego's
investment in its water and sewer systems and the need for federal funding for the streetcar. Mr.
McIntyre indicated that he and Ms. Kirk met with Senators Wyden and Merkley on Tuesday after
the Oregon delegation returned from Oregon.
Mayor Hoffman said that he met with Senator Merkley and Congressman Schrader. He
commented that the staff was very important, which was why he wanted to invite the local staff of
the Oregon delegation to go on the streetcar tour. It provided another opportunity to talk about the
sewer and Foothills. Councilor Tierney noted that the staffers all knew about Lake Oswego and
its projects, which was a testimony to the legwork done by the Mayor and others, including Capital
Edge.
Councilor Tierney reported that the First Tier Suburbs Committee meeting was excellent with
many discussions from both a practical and an academic perspective on what was going on in the
suburbs. He indicated that this year's agenda would look at housing that appealed to people as
the demographics and needs changed. He mentioned the interest in more traditional First Tier
suburbs. He spoke of attending the Garland, TX, meeting, if possible.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he would take an acquaintance of Councilor Moncrieff's, a
planner/architect who would be part of the Public Library Association Conference, on a tour of Lake
Oswego this Saturday. He invited the Councilors to join them.
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON November 2, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Respectfully submitted,
� rZ4 fvw
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11
March 23, 2010
LiKI IINA I(AI CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 22, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. on June
22, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson (6:38 p.m.), Hennagin, Olson,
Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn
Christie, City Recorder; Denise Frisbee, Planning & Building Director;
Morgan Holen, Asst Natural Resources Planner; Jonna Papaefthimiou,
Natural Resources Planner
2nd Look Task
Force Members: Jim Owens, Facilitator; Andy Harris, Greg McMurray, Todd Praeger, Amin
Wahab, Cap Hedges, Ken Sandblast, Nancy Gronowski
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Planning Director Report on Second Look Task Force Report
Mayor Hoffman welcomed everyone to the first study session on the presentation of the Second
Look Task Force recommendations, following the Task Force's eight months review of the City's
Sensitive Lands program. He thanked each Task Force member personally for all their time and
effort, as well as their thoughtful deliberations during their meetings.
He reviewed the schedule for the Task Force presentation and Council listening sessions. He
explained the ground rules for tonight's meeting, noting that this was a Council study session with
no public comment. He discussed the various ways in which the public could comment on the
recommendations.
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Frisbee recalled that it was almost a year ago in July that the City, in light of the community
concerns and questions, decided that it needed to review the Sensitive Lands program. She
thanked the Task Force members for their tremendous service in conducting that review and in
making findings and recommendations to improve the City's Sensitive Lands program.
She reviewed the regulatory history and requirements underpinning the Lake Oswego Sensitive
Lands program. She mentioned Statewide Land Use Planning Goals (mid-1970s) that required
local governments to adopt programs to protect natural resources (Goal 5) and to protect stream
corridors for water quality (Goal 6). She cited OAR 660 as spelling out the Goal 5 process in
detail. She mentioned Section 4 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (adopted in the mid-
1990s) as reflecting these same ambitions in its directives to "protect, restore, and maintain the
stream corridors to maintain water quality," and "to protect, enhance, and maintain the wooded
character and natural features of Lake Oswego that are prized by its citizens."
She reviewed the history of the Sensitive Lands program in Lake Oswego (p.2), including the
mapping begun after Metro's adoption of Title 3 in 1997 required cities to do so as part of
implementing Goal 6. She emphasized that Metro's Title 3 required all cities within the Metro
region to map stream and/or riparian areas and to protect them through the application of buffers
and development restrictions.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18
June 22, 2010
She indicated that, while Metro provided a model code approach for Title 3 compliance, it also
allowed jurisdictions to tailor programs to match their community values. She explained that Lake
Oswego's custom program chose to protect both riparian areas/stream corridors and tree groves.
She reiterated that the Comprehensive Land directive to protect the wooded character of Lake
Oswego was the impetus behind the protection of tree groves in the City's Sensitive Lands
program.
She discussed the Sensitive Lands program elements. She mentioned the Resource Conservation
(RC) overlay for tree grove protection and the Resource Protection (RP) overlay for riparian and
stream corridor protections, both of which applied to mapped properties included in the inventory.
She indicated that the inventory included approximately 1,400 lots with some designation of
sensitive lands; 1,000 of those were single family tax lots, or 7% of the city's individually owned
residential properties.
She commented that sensitive land designation on nearly 90% of the 1,000 lots involved only a
portion of the property; however, the resources on the remaining lots covered 75% or more of the
property. She said that the Task Force considered the different impacts on these two distinct
groups. She referenced a data analysis prepared by Ms. Holen that provided a clearer picture of
the properties impacted by the mapping and regulations.
She spoke of the City's map update in the mid 2000s, which identified an additional 150 properties
that staff believed should be added to the inventory. She pointed out that these properties have
not yet been included on the maps. She mentioned that, also in 1997, Metro adopted Title 13,
which was its effort to implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (to protect habitat and to promote
connectivity). She noted that Title 13 required compliance with Title 3 as a pre -requisite.
She reported that, based on discussions with Metro staff, the City staff had anticipated achieving
compliance with Title 3 and Title 13 with the City's current program plus a few changes to the
existing code. She recalled that when the staff proposal to clarify and resolve outstanding issues
in the code came before Council in 2008, the community raised a number of questions and
concerns about the best way to protect resources and to meet the City's compliance obligations.
She reviewed several of the questions raised that prompted this review. She mentioned concerns
about regulatory flexibility, compliance with Metro, environmental ecological values, the City's
promotion of voluntary compliance, education, and incentives, the non -designation of Oswego
Lake and the Willamette River as resource protection areas, and improving the City's permitting
and review processes. She noted the question of whether the City should be doing a better job of
maintaining its own natural areas.
She stated that staff has placed the mapping and the Metro compliance report on hold. Metro
granted the City an extension to December 2010 to conduct a review of its program, which the
Second Look Task Force undertook.
She mentioned that there were also values questions raised by the community regarding fairness
and the challenge of balancing individual interests versus the public good. She clarified that the
Task Force did not address those questions, as they fell under the purview of the City Council.
She stated that the staff's goal in working with the Task Force has been to provide the Council with
solid information and an understanding of the compliance obligations, so that the Council could
undertake the challenge of balancing interests and prioritizing competing and conflicting
community values.
She explained that staff wanted to provide the Council with the factual underpinnings and to help
the members understand the continuum of regulation from no regulation to excessive regulation.
The question then became where Lake Oswego should sit on that continuum in light of its
community values.
She described the City's efforts to conduct a transparent, thoughtful, and deliberative review
process in this time of government distrust. She spoke of addressing all issues on the basis of
factual underpinnings, while respecting the high degree of emotions surrounding private property
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18
June 22, 2010
issues. She commented that she thought that the Task Force was successful in conducting its
program review within that framework. She spoke of the members' tremendous expertise, high
knowledge base, and temperaments well-suited to addressing contentious issues.
She introduced Jim Owens, Cogan Owens Cogan, who served as the Task Force facilitator. She
reviewed his education, expertise, and experience in natural resources/conservation planning and
facilitation.
TASK FORCE REPORT
• Introduction, Jim Owens
Mr. Owens indicated that two of the nine Task Force members could not attend tonight: Jim
Johnson and Tim Mather. He concurred with Ms. Frisbee that the Task Force was a group of
committed and impressive citizens, with whom he had the honor of working.
He observed that any process associated with a controversial subject matter was subject to
criticism itself. He addressed several of the criticisms of this process, including the group's
expertise. He commented that the City put together a group of practitioners and property owners
that he believed was exactly the right mix of persons for the Task Force. He remarked that one
would be hard pressed to find a better suited group to undertake this charge.
He described the process, which he noted was intentionally not a standard public process. He
pointed out that the Task Force was a work group without any decision-making authority and
advisory to the Planning Director. He commented that, while staff constantly reminded them to
stay on target in terms of subject matter and time frame, they did respond to written public
comments submitted at their meetings. He mentioned the public check-in that the Task Force
members themselves conducted, which over 120 Lake Oswego residents and other interested
parties attended.
He stated that the criticism that the recommendations were steered by the Planning Department or
the facilitator was not true. He recalled the frustration on the Task Force at the lack of input from
the Planning Department. He emphasized that all the considerations and recommendations
presented were generated by the Task Force; the members were not steered in any way. He
described his function as a translator and organizer.
He discussed the three phase process they used: information collection, organization and vetting
of the information and input received, and development of the recommendations (pp.3-4). He
mentioned site visits to some representative properties to see how these issues played out in
reality. He said that, prior to the final draft of the recommendations, he interviewed each Task
Force member to make sure that the recommendations adequately reflected everyone's concerns.
He read the Task Force's five -point charge, which set the context for the recommendations (p. 2).
He noted what the Task Force was not charged with (p.2). He commented that the Task Force did
try to respond to questions and issues that fell within its charge. He explained that the Task Force
members intentionally signed their names to this report with its 63 recommendations in order to
verify that it was a consensus product.
• Planning Context and Section 1, Nancy Gronowski
Ms. Gronowski indicated that she has lived in Lake Oswego since 1987. She said that she was a
landscape architect by training and currently working as a Senior Park Planner with Portland Parks
& Recreation. She spoke of working for Oregon State Parks and briefly for Lake Oswego. She
mentioned writing Portland's Urban Forestry Management Plan and a number of other master
plans for both Portland and the State.
She presented a graphic showing the overall planning context for the Second Look Task Force's
work (p.7). She explained how the State, Metro, and City goals and regulations inter -related. She
reviewed the key Task Force messages (p.2). She mentioned the value that the community placed
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18
June 22, 2010
on its natural resources, the uneven distribution and dynamic nature of natural resources, and
Metro's required compliance with its Titles 3 and 13.
She mentioned the Task Force's study of how many different cities responded to the Metro
requirements. She observed that the programs were not fundamentally different, but they did
reflect each city's individual response to the requirements, as Lake Oswego's did. She
acknowledged that some people perceived Lake Oswego's program as overly restrictive. She
indicated that they found good examples from other cities that Lake Oswego could emulate in
addressing those issues.
She discussed the Task Force's recommended improvements to the Sensitive Lands program
(p.3). She mentioned employing a combination of regulatory, voluntary, and incentive measures
applied to both public and private lands, and providing more flexibility to property owners. She
spoke of adapting portions of Metro's model code and simplifying and clarifying the City's code
provisions and permit application process.
She presented Section 1, the City leading by example (p.8), and its three related recommendations
of creating programs for both public and private lands.
• Section 2, Greg McMurray
Mr. McMurray stated that he was a scientist with graduate degrees in freshwater ecology and
oceanography. He mentioned his work experience with the State of Oregon in natural resources
management and as a consultant. He indicated that he had a sensitive lands designation on his
property.
He presented Section 2, Designating Sensitive Lands, and the two subheadings of the designation
process and modifications to the Sensitive Lands map (pp.8-14). He explained that the current
designation process involved satellite imaging and limited ground truthing of the resources. He
pointed out that delineation was different from designation and conducted at a property owner's
request to identify the specifics on the ground that development would impact.
He discussed the first issue of the use of the habitat assessment score (HAS) to assess resource
values (p.9). He noted the Task Force's finding that the HAS score was reliable, and its
recommendation that the City continue using it until something better became available.
He discussed the second issue of needing better designation (pp. 9-10). He noted the
recommendation to review and refine the mapped tree groves, and not to include non-native tree
groves as sensitive lands.
He discussed the third issue of ditches (pp. 10-11) and the public concern about protecting ditches
with little or no resource value. He noted the Task Force recommendation to adopt the
Department of State Lands' definition of ditches, since the City Code did not have one, and to re-
evaluate questionable areas.
He discussed the fourth issue of mapping properties outside the City boundary (p.11). He
acknowledged that the City had no jurisdiction over those lands, but, since the Task Force saw
value in advising property owners prior to annexation about the possibility of sensitive lands on
their properties, the group recommended continuing such mapping.
He commented that natural resources management was becoming information -based. He
discussed the sixth issue regarding water quality management of the Lake Oswego watershed
(pp. 12-14). He presented the recommendations for Oswego Lake and the Tualatin and Willamette
Rivers, including assessing them for designation as Goal 5 resources, as Metro has currently not
designated them as significant resources.
He discussed the seventh issue of moving toward a watershed -based approach to water quality
management (p.14). He mentioned that most jurisdictions were moving in this direction. He
presented the three recommendations to move the City towards integrated management of its
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18
June 22, 2010
watershed. He noted that watershed management councils qualified for Oregon Watershed
Management Board funding.
• Section 3, Part A, Ken Sandblast
Mr. Sandblast stated that he has lived in Mountain Park since 1994 but he did not have sensitive
lands on his property. He mentioned his service on the Planning Commission for eight plus years
through the late 1990s. He commented that Ms. Frisbee did a good job of summarizing the history
of the program. He indicated that professionally he was a land use planning consultant with 15
plus years of experience in dealing with municipal land use regulations.
He referenced the staff's breakdown of the Task Force recommendations into code fixes, code
improvements, and big picture issues (pp.3-5, Staff Report). He explained that his presentation
related to the code fixes, which would have the most immediate impact on 75% of what staff dealt
with on a day-to-day basis in regards to the Sensitive Lands program. He mentioned that other
sections of the report also contained recommendations for immediate code fixes.
He explained that right now the City's program was a `one size fits all' approach, whether applying
the code to a single family residential lot or to a commercial property. He argued that they had to
make differentiations in the code between different situations. He mentioned that he and others
had advocated for code flexibility as the key to improving the program.
He presented Section 3, Providing Flexibility, Part A — Protection Measures (pp. 15-17). He pointed
out that the Task Force did not recommend removing the existing RC and RP designations but
dealt more with exempt uses and outright uses allowed in the buffer. He noted the two-tiered
approach of the clear and objective Safe Harbor approach and the discretionary alternate program
approach. He indicated that the basis of the discretionary alternate program approach would be
the net environmental benefit approach.
• Section 3, Parts B and C, Andy Harris
Mr. Harris indicated that, after earning a degree in natural resource planning and interpretation, he
worked for the City of Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Department for 27 years before
moving into the private sector in 2005.
He presented Section 3, Part B -- Net Environmental Benefit Approach (pp. 17-18). He explained
that this approach provided a clear and objective way to look at a resource in terms of its function.
He described how the approach would work in riparian area, noting that a person could use a
variety of different techniques to offset development impact. He presented Section 3, Part C,
Program Incentives (pp.18-19), noting several possible programs to help citizens deal with
managing their sensitive lands.
• Section 3, Part D, Admin Wahab
Mr. Wahab indicated that he lived in Lake Grove growing up in the 1970s and early 1980s. He
said that he had degrees in geological sciences with seven years experience working for the
Oregon Water Resources Department. Currently he worked for the City of Portland Bureau of
Environmental Services, managing the Tyron Creek watershed program. He mentioned that he
looked at the Task Force's work from the eco -regional perspective.
He presented Section C, Part D, Highly Constrained Sites (p.19). He noted that there were a
limited number of highly constrained sites. He explained that using a comprehensive watershed
planning process that integrated all the means of conveying storm water, both natural and
manmade, into the review process would help make the discretionary review process easy and
objective. This information would allow staff to balance the value of resources on specific parcels
within the broader context of the watershed. He mentioned the possibility of the City acquiring a
site if the review process did not provide the flexibility needed to allow certain developments on
these highly constrained lots.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18
June 22, 2010
• Section 4, Cap Hedges
Mr. Hedges stated that his background was advertising and communication. He indicated that he
grew up in Lake Oswego on what was now Lakeview Blvd. He mentioned that he has dealt with
the City Planning Department and the building and development community over the past five plus
years of trying to develop property with sensitive lands on it. He observed that there were negative
perceptions about the way that the Planning Department treated the permitting process and the
difficulties people encountered in trying to get through it.
He presented Section 4, Improving the Permitting Process (pp.20-21). He mentioned that the
public perception that a citizen had no recourse if staff decided that the code blocked his/her
development led to the Task Force recommendation to establish an ombudsman to work with the
Planning Department and the property owner to help find reasonable solutions.
He recounted his investigating why one builder preferred to work in Beaverton or Hillsboro over
Lake Oswego. He reported that Beaverton took a more user-friendly and positive approach in
working as a team with the end user in order to accomplish his/her goals while protecting the
environment. He mentioned the public perception that some members of the Planning Department
felt that the feelings of the community were less important than their charge. He spoke of re-
orienting the Department towards a customer service orientation. He commented that another
area for improvement was permit fee reductions and waivers, as currently they were high.
Section 5 and Complementary Recommendations, Todd Praeger
Mr. Praeger stated that he lived in Lake Oswego and worked as a planner and City arborist for the
City of Tigard. He mentioned his past experience as an arborist for the City of San Francisco and
research work on urban forest issues with the US Forest Service and University of California.
He presented Section 5, Increasing awareness of the program (pp.21-22). He mentioned that the
comments that the Task Force heard most frequently indicated a public unawareness of the
program. He reviewed the recommendations that the City regularly provide outreach materials to
sensitive lands owners in order to avoid another surprise in 10 years, and that it promote the use of
disclosure statements during the property selling process.
He presented the Complementary Recommendations, (pp.22-23) regarding controlling noxious or
invasive vegetation. He mentioned that the Task Force heard from a natural resource expert that
Lake Oswego had more of a problem with invasive species, such as ivy and blackberries, than
other cities in the Metro area. He pointed out that invasive species did not respect property
boundaries, and therefore the Task Force recommended a community -wide approach to handling
the problem.
He spoke of removing barriers in the code to removing invasive species and providing incentives
for volunteer removal of invasive plants. He described invasive plants as the greatest threat to the
City's urban eco -system, other than development pressures.
Mr. Owens noted that the Task Force's supplementary documentation was extensive. He
reiterated that the Task Force was an impressive group of citizen volunteers who developed this
comprehensive set of recommendations.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Tierney asked which recommendations the Task Force considered to be the top three
recommendations. Mr. Owens mentioned short-term code fixes. Mr. Sandblast concurred. He
identified amending the code to allow the exempt uses that allowed people to use their properties,
dealing with the ditch issue, and capturing flexibility in the code. Mr. Praeger agreed with the
importance of getting away from the `one size fits all' concept and allowing staff more flexibility.
Mr. Owens identified taking advantage of the code audit process to simplify the code and providing
incentives for the sensitive lands property owners to help them protect the resource, given that
sensitive lands represented only a small portion of the property in the city. Mr. Sandblast
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18
June 22, 2010
concurred. He pointed out that the construction buffer (p.16) currently in the code was essentially
a buffer to a buffer, which was not necessary. He spoke of developing a quantified clear and
objective standard for those wanting to remodel their home that did not require an expensive
process.
Mr. Praeger commented that another important part was the City taking a leadership role in
managing its sensitive lands. He observed that it was difficult to regulate private property if the
City did not invest in its properties.
Mr. McMurray mentioned that the Task Force saw these recommendations as complementary, as
opposed to competitive in a resource -limited environment. He suggested parsing the
recommendations in order to separate them into those requiring resources and those not requiring
resources. Then, the City could develop a priority list for those recommendations requiring
resources.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Task Force discussed those properties in the community that did
not develop at the same time as neighboring properties and were now designated with tree groves,
which limited the amount of development that they might otherwise have seen. Mr. Owens
answered that the recommendations on highly constrained lots addressed that issue. He noted the
inclusion of a discretionary process if the current standard did not work.
Mr. Sandblast said that the Task Force did not discuss the philosophical issue of property owners
who had tree groves because they did not develop their properties. He indicated that the only
issue they discussed related to that was whether people at the time of purchase were aware of
resources on the property.
Councilor Jordan expressed her appreciation for the Task Force's work. She noted in particular
its work on providing flexibility in protecting the environment. She asked if the mapping
methodology originally mapped a contiguous resource across properties, or if it looked at
resources on a lot -by -lot basis. She mentioned her impression from the citizen comments that the
City used an individual approach, and her understanding from staff that they mapped resources
over a broad, contiguous area, which was composed of individual tax lots.
Mr. Sandblast recalled Mr. Harris stating that the resource was mapped, irrespective of property
lines. He pointed out that the `green blobs' on the maps came from the GIS information indicating
the presence of a tree canopy or a drainage way, which could span many properties.
Councilor Jordan commented that she understood covenants as contracts in which each party
received something. She noted that the City received the resource identification but she wondered
what the property owner received in exchange. She remarked that she did not see the Task Force
addressing the question except by suggesting incentives and reduced fees. Mr. Owens pointed
out that property owners with tree groves could develop up to 50% of the tree grove. He
mentioned the recommendations for increased flexibility in riparian areas by allowing more outright
permitted uses.
Mr. Sandblast observed that the notice of development restriction did not use the word covenant.
He recalled the Task Force discussing the issue because, on the one hand, they repeatedly heard
about deed altering land use restrictions, which Metro did not require, and on the other, people
said that they did not know about sensitive lands on the property because there was no notice. He
indicated that the City currently provided notice for tree groves but not for riparian areas.
Mr. Hedges indicated to Councilor Jordan that the disclosure notice he mentioned was in
addition to the City's current practice. He noted the Task Force recommendation that the Council
consider tax or other incentives.
Mr. Owens clarified to Councilor Johnson that the Task Force saw the ombudsman as someone
to help property owners through the permitting process but it did not agree on whether this position
should work for the Planning Department or the Council. He indicated that the City of Portland had
a well -funded ombudsman position, which suggested looking at the fiscal impacts of such a
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18
June 22, 2010
position. Mr. Hedges mentioned the concept that this ombudsman might also work in other areas
of the City in a quasi -independent role.
Councilor Johnson commented that, while it seemed like an ombudsman might correct many of
the issues in getting the code to work better, she speculated that Beaverton did not have one
because its code worked so well that it did not need one. She wondered whether that should be
Lake Oswego's goal.
Mr. Hedges agreed that that would be the ideal. He commented that Beaverton's approach
seemed to be more proactive, even at the level of semantics. He mentioned their use of `habitat -
friendly' versus `sensitive lands restrictions.' He suggested that making the negatives into positives
could influence the culture of the department and the planning process to a more dynamic culture
of service to the community and to the environment. He observed that a culture totally dedicated
to protecting the environment at all costs set up a winner and a loser scenario.
Ms. Frisbee clarified that Beaverton, Tualatin, and Tigard were in the Clean Water Services
District, which regulated sensitive lands on behalf of the cities. Therefore, a development applicant
had to get approval from Clean Water Services, and not from the cities. She agreed that
Beaverton's approach of habitat -friendly practices and incentives was something that Lake
Oswego could emulate, yet the Beaverton staffers told Lake Oswego that they did not use it much
because people received their sensitive lands development permit from Clean Water Services.
Mr. Owens indicated to Councilor Johnson that Clean Water Services had the model watershed -
based program in the country. The District had more financial resources available to it than any
other single jurisdiction because it used rate -based funding to finance it. Ms. Frisbee mentioned
that Metro carved out a separate approach for Clean Water Services because it could show a
dedicated source of long-term funding (millions of dollars) to accomplish outreach, property
acquisition, and larger scale stream restoration efforts.
Councilor Hennagin thanked the Task Force members for the hours of service that they provided
to the City. He mentioned that his experience with ditches in Oregon has been that one dug a
ditch to divert water away from something, which water would eventually go into a creek. He asked
how they could exempt a ditch in light of the water quality protection requirements.
Mr. Harris explained that most ditches had only a water quality function of carrying drainage water,
which the Public Works Department and drainage standards handled and Sensitive Lands did not
regulate. Sensitive Lands regulated only those ditches with a stream function, such as when a
stream intersected with a ditch.
Councilor Hennagin asked how one could build a deck into a riparian area without affecting the
integrity of the riparian area. Mr. Sandblast explained that they had been looking at an existing
building in the buffer zone, and not one in the actual riparian area. Ms. Frisbee pointed out that
the City currently had `no touch' buffers, and the recommendations suggested adding flexibility to
the code to allow some uses in the buffer area, as well as providing information on best
management practices for both the buffer and the riparian areas.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the net environmental benefit came up under
the separate permit review process recommended by the Task Force and applied primarily to much
larger developments. She commented that, in recommending small buffer intrusions, the Task
Force recognized that the Metro model code allowed those, and that doing so offered flexibility to
citizens in concert with outreach and education on better voluntary practices. Mr. Harris added the
caveat that the flood plain function of a stream lay in the buffer area, which was a consideration in
allowing some uses in the buffer.
Councilor Hennagin cited the report's reference to allowing more flexibility with a de minimis
standard, but he questioned the 200 to 500 square foot size mentioned. He wondered whether a
150 square foot size was more reasonable. Mr. Harris explained that the Metro model code had a
200 foot de minimis standard, and other cities, such as Tigard, had up to 500 feet. He noted the
Task Force recommendation that anything over 200 feet be accompanied by commensurate
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18
June 22, 2010
mitigation. Mr. Sandblast pointed out that the Metro model code's definition of development used
a percentage of the area for a buffer, as opposed to a hard number. He recalled that the Task
Force decided that a hard number would be better because of the wide variety of buffer and lot
sizes. Councilor Hennagin clarified that his concern was two citizens in similar situations getting
different rulings from the Planning Department because of flexibility, and one party complaining of
unfairness.
Councilor Olson thanked the Task Force, remarking that many of its common sense
recommendations were welcome suggestions in line with what the Council has been hearing from
citizens for the last year. She commented that the broader policy issue of what the City should
regulate and protect and how it should protect it was still an issue that the Council needed to
discuss as part of this process.
Mr. Owens indicated to Councilor Olson that he did not recall their research finding that any
jurisdiction other than Lake Oswego that regulated tree groves within the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). He said that they did discover that Lake Oswego had the smallest protective buffers of any
jurisdiction in the region, which was a trade off for protecting tree groves. He commented that a
number of jurisdictions were currently looking into that protection, such as Portland, Tigard, and
Clackamas County. Councilor Olson clarified that Tigard and Clackamas County were looking at
tree codes.
Councilor Olson referenced the code auditors' comment about significant advances in resource
protection since the City made the choice to regulate significant tree groves, and their
recommendation that the City look into best management practices and updated approaches to
resource protection before making major changes to the City code.
Ms. Gronowski indicated to Councilor Olson that the Task Force did not get into the level of
detail of establishing the performance standards called for in Title 13 (p.7). Ms. Frisbee clarified
that their research did not find any city in the Metro area that has developed those performance
standards. Instead, the cities all relied on regulatory practices.
Councilor Olson asked Mr. McMurray to expand on the recommendation to better define tree
groves. Mr. McMurray explained that he referred to designation based on an on the ground
survey, as opposed to the satellite photos, which could be several years old.
Ms. Frisbee clarified to Councilor Olson that the `remote sensing' used by Metro referred to aerial
photos. She explained that Metro gave these aerial photos to the cities as the 50,000 foot level
view of its resources and told them to refine the resource map with an on the ground review of the
properties. She indicated that the City has used the HAS (Habitat Assessment Score) evaluation
to do that refinement.
Mr. Praeger indicated to Councilor Olson that he did not know why Lake Oswego was reported
as having more of an ivy problem than other communities in the region. He said that Christie
Galen, who did HAS assessments around the state, told the Task Force that. He speculated that it
had to do with invasive species originating as ornamental garden escapees, and Lake Oswego
having a longer history of ornamental gardening than other jurisdictions.
Mr. Wahab mentioned that Portland had an active vegetation management program that invested
a lot of money in the management of invasive species, as did Clean Water Services. Councilor
Olson commented that her hypothesis had also been that Lake Oswego did not have an active
management program.
Councilor Olson referenced Mr. Sandblast's comment about the Catch-22 that the City found
itself in with respect to the restrictive covenant. She pointed out that only 62 of the 1,500
properties currently mapped had the restriction recorded at the County, which meant that it was not
serving the purpose of notifying potential purchasers. She questioned the need for it, given that
Metro did not require it.
Mr. Sandblast commented that the 62 properties with the restriction recorded at the County were
likely those properties that went through a tree grove delineation process and designated which
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18
June 22, 2010
50% of the delineated tree grove was protected. He pointed out that whether the City continued
with its notice of development restriction was a policy level decision for the Council to make. He
observed that it was done for the RC overlay because the City Code required it, and for the RP
overlay because it conveyed information.
He mentioned his appreciation of Ms. Frisbee earlier clarifying that this notice was different than
the Task Force recommendation that the City have a way to provide information regarding these
designations to the parties involved in a property exchange. He emphasized that the extensive
education and outreach recommendations were in response to the lack of public awareness of the
program.
Councilor Olson reiterated that, even though the 62 recordings were the result of delineations, the
fact that there were only 62 out of 1,500 properties delineated indicated that the notice was not
accomplishing the goal of notification.
Ms. Frisbee clarified that staff received only eight to ten delineation requests a year; these 62
delineations came in over the last five years. She explained that staff required recording the notice
at the County only when someone came in asking to divide or develop the property; the purpose
was to provide notice to prospective purchasers about the restrictions.
She concurred with Mr. Sandblast that this was a policy decision. She confirmed that it was not a
Metro requirement, yet many jurisdictions did it in order to avoid a surprise at the Planning counter.
She pointed out the disconnect between asking the Planning Department to promote customer
service and yet leaving it to staff to inform a citizen asking for a permit of this surprise.
Mr. Powell referenced Councilor Jordan's comment regarding covenants. He said that a covenant
most commonly meant a promise by the property owner that went beyond the code requirements,
or it meant something achieved in exchange for a permit. He mentioned the current code
language that said in order to put property owners and occupants on notice, the applicant would
execute a covenant running with the land. He pointed out the irony that the language used the
word `covenant,' but what was promised was no more than what the code required anyway.
He commented that the Council could call the document `a notice of restrictions under the code' as
opposed to `a covenant' and keep it in its toolbox. He speculated that the language change might
change some of the perception that the document altered the deed or devalued the property.
Councilor Olson commented that she preferred to see the Planning staff, City Code, customer
service, and City approach negate the need for an ombudsman, although she appreciated the
recommendation. She referenced the sensitive lands data that Ms. Holen prepared for the Task
Force. She asked why the data did not include the required protection buffers, the 1 B resources
and parcels with less than 300 square feet of designated resource.
Ms. Frisbee explained that it was not possible to figure out less than 300 feet on that kind of
analysis using the GIS system. She said that they did not know which 1 B sites would end up on
the inventory or what the buffers were until staff has refined the map on the ground. Ms. Holen
indicated that she would type up a written report for the Council.
Councilor Olson referenced p.226 in the notebook provided to the Council. She asked for more
discussion on the statement that "the provisions of the Sensitive Lands code did not apply to
residences located within the boundaries of a partition, a subdivision, a planned development, or a
lot line adjustment approved prior to August 21, 1997." She commented that that would exclude
many properties, including those with already developed backyards.
Mr. Powell noted that the language continued with the condition that these properties "would not
be included if the resource was identified and protected pursuant to the regulations in effect at the
time of approval." He indicated that the intent of this language was to grandfather in properties
regulated under the old Lake Oswego Development Standards 3 and 4, rather than changing them
to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He commented that this provision did not speak to the question
of whether the City could now designate and delineate a resource in an old subdivision developed
before the City had any resource protections in place.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18
June 22, 2010
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Jordan that a conservation easement of some sort would be
either on the deeds of properties with resources regulated under the older standard, or on the
subdivision plat.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that there were two groups of affected property owners: those
with sensitive lands already designated and those with the potential for designated sensitive lands.
She asked if the Task Force's recommendations around code changes would allow more uses
within the conservation area on properties with sensitive lands already designated. She observed
that those recommendations combined with the flexibility mentioned on p. 16 created a balance of
a concrete Safe Harbor process with a discretionary review process.
Mr. Owens indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he did not think that these recommendations
would address all the concerns of those citizens with current sensitive lands designations on their
properties. He observed that there was divisiveness in the community on this issue, as they also
heard from those who feared that the recommendations went too far. He commented that the Task
Force heard loudly the request for no sensitive lands overlays on private lands.
Mr. Sandblast indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the Task Force recommendations did do a
better job of satisfying the concerns that the Task Force heard from residents with sensitive lands
designations than simply adopting the Metro model code would have done. He pointed out that the
Task Force was not charged with considering the question of whether or not the City should
designate resources; that was a Council policy question. The Task Force's charge was to look at
making the existing program better.
He emphasized that these recommendations did improve the existing program per the Task Force
charge because they acknowledged the reality of what the City has learned over the last 10 years
of implementing the program. He argued that adopting the model code would not have worked for
Lake Oswego because the community needed a program specifically tailored to its issues and
concerns. He mentioned the model code elements that the Task Force picked out as applicable to
Lake Oswego, such as the exempted uses and the de minimis standard.
He confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that these recommendations would go a long way in
increasing flexibility. He commented that simply getting out of the `one size fits all' mentality and
recognizing what 75% of the City staff resources were spent on was a huge improvement. Mr.
Owens observed that the recommendations addressed public education, incentives, etc., along
with code flexibility as a complete package.
Councilor Moncrieff referenced the second group of those with the potential to receive a sensitive
lands designation. She mentioned her understanding from the report that the Task Force was
satisfied with the HAS and ESEE analyses. She asked if the Task Force was comfortable with the
recourse available to those citizens challenging the designation.
Mr. Sandblast recalled that staff asked the Task Force to look at that issue. He referenced p. 12
in the Task Force Report, Issue 5, Recommendation 2, in which the Task Force recommended
completing the development code revisions before adding any resources to the inventory map. He
commented that having a clear and objective method available for the next set of sensitive lands
properties was the obvious thing to do.
Councilor Moncrieff thanked the Task Force for its work and excellent recommendations. She
stated her understanding that the Task Force consensus was that it would be good to implement
the code changes as soon as possible because it would increase the flexibility for the existing
sensitive lands owners. She mentioned that she liked Mr. Hedges' comments about taking a more
user-friendly and positive approach in working cooperatively with the land owners.
Mayor Hoffman referenced Mr. Owens' comment that the Task Force heard loud and clear that a
number of Lake Oswego residents did not what sensitive lands restrictions on their property. He
asked if the Task Force found any path towards achieving that request while doing its research.
Ms. Gronowski indicated that, based on their research, sensitive lands restrictions were not an
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18
June 22, 2010
option; these regulations were a fact of life in Oregon with its Statewide Planning Goals and
Comprehensive Plans.
Mr. Praeger pointed out that, as Clean Water Services increased its resource investment in
sensitive lands to maintain, protect, and acquire properties, the cities had more flexibility in their
regulations. He observed that, while this did not eliminate any regulations, it did help shift the
balance.
Mayor Hoffman asked if the Task Force found any information on how other cities addressed the
fairness issue. He referenced the comment that natural resources were not distributed equally in
the city. Mr. Owens remarked that the fairness issue has been on the table since zoning began.
He observed that incentives and restriction levels were both part of the balance that jurisdictions
were trying to achieve. He mentioned that the many jurisdictions used the Metro model code
because it provided clear and objective standards so that everyone knew what the rules were, yet
allowed an alternative process if those did not work for a community.
Mr. Hedges mentioned that the culture issue came up based on the input that he has received
from builders regarding what needed improvement in the Lake Oswego process. Mr. Wahab
pointed out that there was a heavy concentration of overlay zones on the Westside of Portland
because that was where the resources were.
Mayor Hoffman encouraged the Council to raise policy questions in this second time around the
table.
Councilor Tierney asked if a City program of regulations, incentives, and education focused on
watershed management would have a more positive net natural resource benefit than the current
program. Mr. Praeger recalled that the Task Force kept coming back to the need to look at the
city watershed and the impact on the overall watershed of actions on both sensitive lands and non -
sensitive lands. He commented that everyone agreed that "greening up" the overall development
code to help reduce the downstream impacts would make a difference.
Mr. Wahab answered the question `yes.' He noted that a comprehensive watershed plan would
give the City a handle on all the resources inside and outside the sensitive lands. He commented
that the benefit to the City was the ability to review development applications in light of the
watershed plan and to protect the resources as much as possible throughout the community. He
pointed out that without that context, the City focused on sensitive lands as protected islands. He
mentioned that having the broader view could allow protection of tree groves in areas without the
overlay zones, which would relieve the pressure on the islands protected by the overlays.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:54 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
9:05 p.m.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Task Force's review of the Environmental Social Economic Energy
(ESEE) analysis found that the analysis would allow latitude in making decisions about a property
with a high HAS score and economic and social implications that needed balancing. Mr. Owens
explained that the ESEE analysis was designed as a balancing act. He commented that local
jurisdictions had significant discretion in balancing the four considerations in determining whether
to protect a resource or not.
Councilor Tierney commented that the report he read did not seem to strike a balance between
the four factors but was rather written from an environmental perspective. He asked if the City
really used ESEE in its processes. Mr. Owens stated that using ESEE was a requirement. He
commented that the art of preparing ESEE analyses has progressed significantly over the 15 years
since the adoption of the Goal 5 administrative rules. He reiterated that it was a subjective
balancing act. He mentioned that many jurisdictions used their Planning Commission to review
ESEE analyses for a second look at them.
Mr. Sandblast mentioned that he too sat on the Planning Commission when the Sensitive Lands
program went through. He said that he could not recall even one contested case where the
property owner brought back a HAS functional value or an ESEE analysis. He commented that a
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18
June 22, 2010
property owner not providing alternate expert analysis to legitimately contest the expert analysis
provided by the City staff did not leave decision makers much to do other than to accept the
evidence on hand.
Mayor Hoffman recalled that Metro did an ESEE analysis of all the different kinds of zoning within
the region when it went through Title 13 and developed the different levels of habitat conservation
areas. He mentioned Metro's ESEE analysis comparing regionally significant habitat in
neighborhoods and the economic aspects of neighborhoods. He indicated that Metro found that all
regionally significant resources within the neighborhoods were high habitat conservation areas.
Councilor Olson asked if that included tree groves.
Councilor Tierney suggested the appeals process and its basis as a topic for future discussion.
He mentioned his impression of the process, based on Mr. Sandblast's description, as `us against
the world,' in that the City paid for the experts and their evidence was insurmountable unless a
citizen brought in his/her own experts.
Councilor Tierney asked how staff would find any new unmapped resources, beyond those
identified in 2007, in an urbanized community like Lake Oswego, which was becoming more urban
and not more natural. Ms. Frisbee commented that there was fluidity to the resource
designations, especially tree groves, because things changed. Therefore, the City needed to
continue to assess resources over time.
She noted that the City's maps matched Metro's maps. She indicated that Metro staff told the City
staff that the City needed to stay on top of resource assessment moving forward and to investigate
any better avenues for resource assessment that became available. Mr. Owens commented that
it was a two-way street, in that the City might lose some resources over time and consider
removing a sensitive lands designation, if appropriate.
Ms. Frisbee speculated that the original 1997 effort simply ran out of steam after identifying the
1,450 properties included on the inventory. The 2007/2008 staff work identifying an additional 150
properties completed that process.
Councilor Tierney asked if continual updating might have the unintended consequence of
deterring people from enhancing the natural state of their property over concerns about falling
under these regulations. Ms. Gronowski commented that she did not know if it would.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that sensitive lands protections protected large contiguous areas or
entire stream corridors. A property did not suddenly become sensitive lands when a property
owner planted trees on his/her lot. Mr. Hedges cited an example of the Weibel family planting fir
trees on their land 50 years ago in order to enhance their back yard, and now their couple of acres
was under sensitive lands restrictions.
Councilor Jordan indicated that her concern was sending a mixed message to the citizens about
what could happen on a 5,000 square foot lot if the owner planted a lot of trees. She reiterated
that she did not see the regulations applying to a tree grove standing in isolation on a lot,
surrounded by properties with landscaping and gardens.
Councilor Tierney reiterated his concern that `continual' updating meant that this process was
endless. Mr. Sandblast referenced the consideration on p.12 that described this as an ongoing
process because land use was not static. He noted the increasing information available from GIS
and LIDAR mapping systems that would help in creating a holistic watershed -based program. He
commented that, while water quality was important, the Task Force focused on land use. Without
a watershed -based approach that integrated the various aspects of the regulatory world, land use
needed ongoing updating. He cited the Clean Water Services watershed plan as an example of an
integrated program. He mentioned the Task Force's view of big picture watershed -type planning
as critical, given that 80% of the town drained into Oswego Lake.
Councilor Jordan recalled the specific annexation case that caused the Council concern and
encouraged the second mapping effort. The property owner left 50% of the delineated tree grove
standing but he did not maintain the contiguous tree grove and cut down the trees that were
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18
June 22, 2010
connected to the other trees. She spoke to working with property owners in similar situations to
keep the contiguous 50%.
Mr. Sandblast indicated to Councilor Tierney that the consideration on p.11 stated that, while the
City had no jurisdiction outside its boundaries, it needed to collect information on natural resources
within its Urban Services Boundary (USB) for long-range planning purposes. He explained that
currently if an annexation request involved a property with a significant resource, the request went
to the Planning Commission for the RP or RC designation process. The City had a separate
process to deal with a property owner who did something to a known resource before requesting
annexation.
Councilor Tierney clarified that his concern about endless revisions related to Issue 5,
Consideration 4 (p.12). Mr. Harris commented that, as the City moved to a watershed -based
approach, the community would start to think in terms of how all parts of the system worked
together, as opposed to focusing on the impacts of sensitive lands on individual properties.
Mr. Owens noted the Task Force's statement that it saw no need for any mapping modifications at
this time, but it did recognize the periodic reviews mandated under the statewide planning goals
and the City's Comprehensive Plan. He cited further definition of the `tree blobs' on the map and
the designation of Oswego Lake as a resource as examples of periodic review.
Mr. McMurray observed that a number of things could change quickly with respect to the
protections needed. He mentioned daylighting streams, drivers outside the community, such as
the Endangered Species Act, and the increasing information that would include the tree species
(related to wildlife habitat). He commented that HAS scores could change rapidly because that
system looked at factors other than tree canopy, such as wildlife food and access cover in the
undergrowth. Undergrowth grew more quickly than a tree grove.
Councilor Moncrieff mentioned her concern that the residents feared and avoided sensitive lands
overlay designations. She observed that the more zoning that a city had, the higher the property
values. She discussed her goal of making the sensitive lands code flexible, fair, and as reasonable
as possible, using the Task Force recommendations, in order to make it something that should not
be avoided or feared. She pointed out that the Lake Oswego community as a whole valued
resources, and that the goal of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance was to protect and grow the
resources.
She spoke of figuring out how to make the overlays appealing to residents in order to encourage
willing compliance. She referenced the communications mentioned by Mr. Hedges. She
suggested providing incentives and assistance in such a way that people wanted the designations
because they knew that they could still enjoy and use their yards.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned that the two-tier system for development caused him concern in
wondering how a resident would be knowledgeable enough at the initial application stage to know
which track to select. He acknowledged that the more flexible standards for development were
aimed at the highly impacted properties. He asked whether a resident seeking development on a
property without a sensitive lands designation could opt for the more flexible system.
Mr. Sandblast commented that he agreed with Councilor Olson that the City would not need an
ombudsman if it had a system that functioned correctly. He observed that part of the system
functioning correctly was educating people to understand their choices. However, under the
current `one size fits all' system, staff had no choice but to direct the applicant down the stipulated
channel.
He pointed out that, while the alternate review process in the two-tiered system was more
uncertain, discretionary, expensive, and time-consuming, it did give staff a vehicle to work with in
assisting the applicant. He reiterated that 75% of what the staff dealt with related to replacing
decks or house additions. These applicants should have a clear and objective way to achieve their
goal that was not expensive and did not require experts, which option was not available right now.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18
June 22, 2010
Mr. Harris commented that he thought the Task Force's intention in adding incentives, such as the
discretionary track, had been to help balance the additional restrictions on sensitive lands owners,
as opposed to making those options available to anyone.
Mr. Sandblast referenced the fully encumbered situation mentioned earlier. He said that the Task
Force decided that the existing practice of the biggest house on the smallest lot was a clear and
objective way to deal with that situation. He commented that, with only 50 to 60 of these heavily
encumbered properties in town, staff (as available) could create an analysis of what the biggest
house on the smallest lot on a given property might mean to the property owner as an
informational piece. He observed that they needed to balance both flexibility and certainty in the
code.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Ms. Frisbee's staff report categorized the
recommendations in terms of those affecting the budget and those that staff could implement
immediately.
Councilor Olson asked to discuss the policy issue of updated mapping. She commented that
Lake Oswego, as the only jurisdiction that mapped and protected tree groves, would likely add
properties to its map during a Comprehensive Plan update when other jurisdictions would only
tweak their maps to refine riparian boundaries. She argued that the City mapping upland tree
groves caused the uproar because Lake Oswego's map updates were not like anybody else's map
updates.
She asked to discuss the issue of spotty mapping of properties within a resource in practice when
the concept was to map the large contiguous resource. She attributed Beaverton's smoother
process to its not regulating upland tree groves. She described the question of what resources the
City protected and how it protected them as the major policy issue. She argued that the source of
many of the City's problems was its regulation of upland tree groves.
She asked for more information on how the City applied the ESEE analysis, and whether it really
looked at the social and economic effects of designating a property, as Councilor Tierney spoke to.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that the Title 13 ordinance contained a good explanation of the ESEE
analysis that Metro did for the entire region, which served as an example of how the ESEE
analyses worked. Councilor Olson concurred but argued that the Metro analysis did not apply to
what Lake Oswego was doing because Metro did not require protection of upland tree groves
within the UGB.
Councilor Olson commented that she thought the recommendation to create a no fee process for
landowners to request sensitive lands map corrections was great. She asked if staff intended to let
the original 1500 mapped properties request a correction.
Ms. Frisbee explained that the City sent out the Natural Resource Planner to evaluate a claim that
a property did not have a natural resource on it. If the Planner agreed, then staff told the property
owner that they would correct it at the next map update, which was originally envisioned as every
10 years. She indicated that staff thought that annual map updates would be a better practice, but
they had to limit the number of requests per year because of staff resource limitations.
She remarked that, based on the past, staff did not expect many requests, but they thought that a
no fee corrections process and more efficient processing would be more responsive to community
needs. She noted that the City did not have the staff resources to do constant monitoring and
mapping, but staff would do that work in conjunction with periodic review and a Comprehensive
Plan update. She mentioned the staff proposal for an appeal of the staff decision to the Planning
Commission and City Council, instead of to LUBA (appeal of a Comprehensive Plan map change).
Councilor Olson commented that she liked that idea. She indicated that she understood the Task
Force discussion of Oswego Lake serving as flood storage and not being a land use as meaning
that the lake was not a resource. She noted the recommendation to assess the designation of
Oswego Lake as a Goal 5 resource and a land use needing zoning regulations. She asked for
further discussion of those two statements.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18
June 22, 2010
Mr. Owens reminded the Councilor that the Task Force had not been of one mind on that issue.
He recalled the Metro staff saying that they did not include it on the region wide map because it
was a manmade feature without any particular land uses on it. He recollected that Task Force
members argued that there could be land uses in the lake that might need regulation. He indicated
that the Task Force felt the issue merited more discussion, as it was not comfortable with the
existing situation, but the discussion of that policy issue did not fall under their purview.
Ms. Frisbee pointed out that the City's approach addressed the elements of a watershed
management plan in a scattered way through land use and development codes, a water quality
program, and a surface water management program. She commented that the Planning
Department knew how to address land use because that was its job but it did not know what to do
with a body of water.
Mr. Sandblast recollected that Metro staff told the Task Force that Oswego Lake met only one of
the five criteria for Title 3 designation (flood storage and flood control). He mentioned that Mr.
Johnson had advocated looking at the issue of zoning the land underneath the lake. The Task
Force concluded that its business was looking at sensitive lands and not at zoning, but it did
express that idea in Recommendation 2.
Mr. McMurray commented that part of their discomfort came from hearing concerns about the
implementation of the sensitive lands overlays and the lack of integrated watershed management
for water quality protections.
Mayor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Olson that Lake Oswego's regulation of tree groves and
riparian areas was different than only regulating riparian areas. He disagreed that Lake Oswego's
map update was unlike other cities' updates. He cited Portland's similar angst in reviewing its
natural resource inventory for the airport futures project and mapping new properties in the large
Slough area with their P and C zones.
He asked if the Task Force considered whether there was a mechanism or a method either to relax
or amend the tree grove protections and then adopt the Metro model code, which would expand
the buffers. Mr. Owens indicated that the Task Force decided that it would not recommend
eliminating the tree grove protection and creating larger buffers.
Mr. Sandblast pointed out that, although the City discussed the tree grove protections as a trade
off for smaller buffers, Metro did not have that linkage. If the Council decided to revisit the tree
groves, it exposed the City to a revisit of expanded buffers also. He concurred with Mr. Owens that
the Task Force chose not to address the issue because the members did not think that the trade
off was worth revisiting. Mayor Hoffman agreed that this was a policy issue and a legal issue.
Councilor Olson pointed out that, while the Metro model code had wider buffers, it also allowed
more uses within those buffers. She commented that she preferred wider buffers with more uses
than the City's current situation of smaller buffers with no uses allowed. Councilor Johnson
spoke in support of keeping the smaller buffers with the tree grove regulations and expanding the
buffer uses.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned that the Metro City Attorney visited one of the Task Force meetings and
discussed the no back sliding provision. She recalled that his conversation had delivered the
message that Metro staff anticipated that Lake Oswego would be in substantial compliance with
Title 13 with its smaller buffers and tree grove regulations.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Tierney that Metro was not yet at the enforcement of
provisions stage, as jurisdictions only submitted their compliance plans in December 2009. She
mentioned that Lake Oswego was one of the four jurisdictions that have not yet submitted their
plans. She explained that the Metro staff worked closely with the City staffs so that a city had a
good idea before submitting its plan whether it would get Metro staff support.
Councilor Tierney commented that he did not want the fact that that provision has not yet been
defined through any Metro process to so constrain the Council that it did not discuss the matter
and think about how to be more creative. Councilor Olson agreed that the Council should
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18
June 22, 2010
discuss this issue, citing Mr. Powell's comment last year that the provision was unusual and could
be tested. Mr. Powell clarified that there were both legal and policy considerations surrounding
this issue but the policy issues were stronger. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that other jurisdictions
would join Lake Oswego in protecting tree groves as they added land, since Metro required
protection of tree groves outside the UGB.
Ms. Frisbee clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that the no backsliding rule referred to the
regulations adopted by a jurisdiction in connection with its Goal 5 protection program. She
explained that if a city already had a Goal 5 protection program in place prior to Metro's adoption of
Title 13, it could not unwind that protection in connection with Title 13 compliance. Mr. Powell
pointed out that, since the Safe Harbor program for complying with Goal 5 did not require upland
tree grove protections, one could argue that those protections were not necessary to comply with
Goal 5 and therefore were not a Goal 5 program.
Councilor Moncrieff mentioned the consideration of whether it was more beneficial to the
watershed system to protect upland tree groves or to increase the stream corridor protections. She
concurred with Councilor Johnson that it would be nice to have smaller buffers and the expanded
uses of the model code. She spoke to not compromising the overall system in looking for trade
offs.
Councilor Olson concurred. She suggested that the Task Force recommendations for incentives,
education, and outreach and the City leading by example were new elements that the City could
offer Metro in combination with its tree code and other elements to do it all without the tree groves.
Mr. Praeger mentioned that, during this discussion, the Task Force considered the emphasis in
the Comprehensive Plan of the importance of tree groves to the community. Tree groves were not
something to be thrown away, even if Metro would let the City eliminate the protections. Councilor
Olson commented that the community had so many tree groves because their importance to the
community meant that residents did not clear cut them. She reiterated that this was a policy
discussion.
Councilor Jordan spoke in support of moving in the direction of treating the system holistically,
instead of in islands. She asked what the City needed to do to make sure that it was in substantial
compliance that would also leave the City with the opportunity to implement some of these
recommendations without having to go back through the whole process.
Ms. Frisbee indicated that staff did not know that for certain. However, City staff discussed the
Task Force recommendations with the Metro staff who did not express concern about them. She
said that they did not talk about removing tree grove protections, which was a bigger policy issue
since that was half the City's sensitive lands program. She commented that somewhere between
changing half the program and making the changes recommended by the Task Force would be
going too far and take the City out of compliance.
Councilor Jordan asked what components could the City put together to make the program work
better for the citizens and still be in compliance with Title 13. She commented that she did not
think that training staff to take a more positive approach would affect Metro compliance. That was
the kind of thing that the City could deal with separately from putting regulations in place to allow
more freedom and flexibility in the buffers, while maintaining small buffers and tree groves.
Ms. Frisbee directed the Councilor to the staff report, which listed the quick fixes staff saw for
responding to citizen concerns about flexibility. She noted that it also identified the program
improvements requiring budget resources and a bigger look. She said that she thought that they
could do the more immediate things and submit the City's compliance package to Metro. She
indicated that she could not guarantee that because City staff has not vetted it with the Metro staff
and the decision was up to the Metro Council in the final analysis.
She indicated to Councilor Jordan that the code audit consultant's report did not call out this
chapter specifically, other than to acknowledge that it was a section of code that generated
questions and concerns. She observed that the Comprehensive Plan update/Periodic Review
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18
June 22, 2010
process was the time to discuss tree groves because the Plan was the original source of the City's
current program. Councilor Olson reported that the code audit consultant's presentation to the
Planning Commission was excellent and available online.
Mr. Sandblast commented that, during the past nine months, he had not been driven by whether
their work complied with Metro or not. His thought had been that if they were doing what was right
for the community, then substantial compliance at the regional level would follow.
The Council discussed whether to continue the discussion to the next evening. Mayor Hoffman
indicated that he would reconvene the discussion at 6:30 p.m. tomorrow.
Councilor Hennagin asked whether the step following authorization of incentives was referral to
the Planning Commission for hearings. Mayor Hoffman said that the Council could discuss that.
He commented that incentives could be dollars from a City fund set up to compensate people X
amount per square foot.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4'���Jwo
Robyn 6hristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON November 2, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18
June 22, 2010
LAM.(111ARXl CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 23, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on June
23, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan.
Councilor Hennagin was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Denise Frisbee, Director of Building and Planning; Morgan
Holen, Assistant Natural Resources Planner
2nd Look Task
Force Members: Jim Owens, Facilitator; Andy Harris, Greg McMurray, Todd Praeger, Ken
Sandblast, Jim Johnson; Cap Hedges
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Continued Review of Planning Director Report on Second Look Task Force Report
Mayor Hoffman encouraged the Council to have both the Task Force Report and Ms. Frisbee's
June 4, 2010, report in front of them. He reviewed the procedure for the evening.
• Staff Review
Ms. Frisbee reviewed what the Council heard last night, noting that staff would take direction from
the Council discussion at these meetings regarding the July 20 meeting. She said that she heard
support for the Task Force recommendations to provide greater flexibilities in the riparian corridor
buffer areas and to align the City with the Metro definition of development to allow more permitted
outright uses and a de minimis disturbance area.
She mentioned support for a two-tiered review track of a clear and objective approach and a
discretionary review process. She noted interest in asking staff to look at streamlining the appeals
and challenge process, including fee reductions or waivers, as well as interest in staff's idea of
annual map corrections with a cap on the number of requests per year and aligning the map
updates with the Comprehensive Plan update/periodic review processes.
She noted the discussion about notice of development restrictions addressed in the staff report and
changing the language to eliminate the word `covenant,' an issue not yet resolved. She
commented that code clarity was an issue important to the staff, strongly recommended by the
Task Force, and an emphasis in the upcoming code audit report. She observed that the
discussion around the policy issue relating to tree groves would continue. She said that she asked
Mr. Powell to identify legal process issues attached to removing tree grove protections.
Mr. Powell discussed the three hurdles that the Council would need to address if it wanted to
eliminate or significantly reduce tree grove protections: the City's Comprehensive Plan, Metro's
anti -backsliding provision in Title 13, and achieving substantial compliance with Metro's Title 13.
He referenced Section 5 of the City's Goal 5, Policy 5B (p.196), which required regulations and
standards for the protection of sensitive lands designated either RC or RP. He noted that Policy 1
on p. 195 spoke of protecting the values and functions of the City's natural resource areas, and
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 17
June 23, 2010
Policy 1, Section 2, on p. 177 addressed the protection of existing vegetation, including tree groves
associated with wetlands, stream corridors, and riparian areas.
He noted that the literal reading of the anti -back sliding provision in Metro Title 13 stated that a
jurisdiction could not repeal or substantially diminish protections already in place. He commented
that, while there might be some policy or legal -based ways to address that with Metro, doing so
was strictly speculation. He mentioned that staff traded off upland tree grove protections for
narrower riparian area buffers in its discussions with Metro staff about how the City's program
complied with Metro Title 13. If the Council eliminated tree grove protections, then it had to
convince both itself and the Metro staff and Metro Council that an equivalent level of protection
remained.
At Mayor Hoffman's request, Mr. Powell reviewed the process involved if the City proposed an
ordinance to eliminate tree grove protections. He explained that it would go through the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process in which DLCD determined whether the amendment
was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the statewide planning goals. He indicated
that the City would need to establish how the amendment still complied with Goal 5 and Title 13.
REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Councilor Jordan asked for clarification on some City Council statements made last night that she
did not believe were answered. She referenced the idea that the program did not apply to land
subdivided prior to a certain date, and the comment that residents with fir trees that they planted
over 40 years ago were now slated to be mapped. She mentioned the comment that the overlay
zones for tree groves were based on larger areas and not identified lot to lot, and the reports of
properties without sensitive lands designations sandwiched in between properties with sensitive
lands designations.
She raised the issue of notice of designated versus delineated land, and the recording on the title.
She noted that there were several sites with an overlay zone not recorded on the title. She asked
why those properties were treated differently if providing notice lay behind recording this
information on the title.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Olson that he could answer tonight the question about
applicability referenced by Councilor Jordan or send the Council a memo. Councilor Olson asked
for discussion of the appraisal report in the staff report.
Mayor Hoffman led the discussion by reading each section, part, or issue title individually,
following the report order. He noted the number of considerations and recommendations
associated with each element. When he heard no more questions or comments on a particular
element, he moved the discussion on to the next element.
• Section 1: Leading by example
Councilor Tierney asked for examples of what restoration meant in this context (Recommendation
3, p.8). Mr. Praeger indicated that the Task Force focused more on removing invasive species
and re -vegetating with native plant species, similar to what the City did in the Springbrook Creek
riparian area restoration.
Mayor Hoffman asked if the Task Force discussed a budget. Ms. Frisbee recalled Ms. Gilmer's
recent information that the cost would be $12,000 per acre for the five years of invasive plant
removal. Councilor Tierney indicated to the Mayor that Ms. Gilmer had said that 400 acres of the
City's 600 acres of open space had invasive species on them.
Councilor Olson commented that a person with a scientific background told her today that one
reason why Lake Oswego had more ivy than other areas was that Lake Oswego had so many
trees, which ivy liked to climb.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 17
June 23, 2010
Councilor Jordan questioned whether the $12,000 included the erosion control needed after
removing ivy in areas like Iron Mountain. Ms. Frisbee mentioned her understanding that the
$12,000 included invasive species removal and native vegetation replanting for area stabilization.
Mr. Praeger explained that ivy was shallow -rooted and did not necessarily prevent erosion. He
confirmed the need for erosion control until the more deeply rooted native plants took hold.
• Section 2: Designating Sensitive Lands, Part A: Process,
Issue 1: Using the HAS system
Councilor Tierney asked why 35 was the HAS score on the 0 to 100 scale for designating
sensitive lands. He commented that 35 seemed to be a little bit left of middle on an arbitrary scale.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned her understanding that experts trained in assessment did the numerical
scoring based on thresholds and criteria. Mr. Harris directed the Councilor to Consideration 2 on
p. 9, which summarized the scoring process. He said that he understood that the 35 came out of
the scientific evolution of the HAS system. He described the process as discretionary but not
arbitrary, as it was based on professional experience and judgment.
Mayor Hoffman suggested staff follow-up on this question.
Councilor Olson pointed out Consideration 2 (p.9) as addressing Councilor Jordan's question
regarding assessment of the whole resource versus assessment by individual tax lot. She read a
sentence from the code audit suggesting that the City look at state-of-the-art protections (p.42-43).
Mr. McMurray explained that the choice of what score to set as designating sensitive lands was a
policy decision made by policy makers. He commented that, while the science informed that
decision, it did not make the decision because, in this case, the science provided a description of
uncertainty based on speculation of results under certain conditions, as opposed to the certainty of
repeatable results under certain conditions.
Councilor Jordan speculated, given that the Council set the score and they now had additional
information and tiers of sensitivity, they would identify more and not less natural resources on land.
Mr. Johnson indicated that when DLCD reviewed Goal 5 submittals, it received a great deal of
input from other federal and state agencies regarding whether the inventory, which determined the
resource significance, was correct. This included evaluating whether the HAS score was too low or
out of play with respect to the inventory.
Mr. Sandblast read the statement on p. 9 stating that the HAS rating by itself did not determine the
designation of a sensitive lands. He described the HAS score as determining whether the
resource was significant enough to go through an ESEE analysis. He referenced the Task Force's
description of the HAS as the scientifically adopted methodology used by the City now, which could
change if the science and technology evolved an alternative methodology.
He thanked Councilor Olson for pointing out the code audit language because it was a concrete
example of his point last night about the need for ongoing review of the resources as well as the
mapping.
Councilor Johnson asked if 35 was a commonly used score in similar plans. Mr. Johnson said
that 35 was a baseline based on how Lake Oswego used the HAS system. He explained that each
jurisdiction weighted and designed the system differently. The 'correct' score depended on the
specifics of the individual sensitive lands programs. He indicated that Metro would not establish a
score, as it was interested in whether a jurisdiction did the inventory correctly, whether it did a
correct analysis of the resource significance, and how it protected the resource.
He clarified to the Councilor that the 'correct' HAS score depended both on how the program was
shaped and on what goal it was trying to achieve. He mentioned that some communities used
HAS scores on more elements than riparian areas and tree groves.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 17
June 23, 2010
• Section 2: Designating Sensitive Lands, Part A: Process,
Issue 2: More Accurate Mapping
Mr. Sandblast indicated to Councilor Tierney that the definitions section of the code (50.02)
contained the definition of a tree grove. He mentioned that any stand of three or more trees
constituted a grove. Mr. Powell affirmed that Mr. Sandblast's general definition, although the code
went into more specifics.
Councilor Tierney asked how one determined whether non-native trees did or did not contribute
to the resource value. Mr. Sandblast explained that the HAS score considered the resource
value. Mr. Harris clarified that the Task Force included the concept of removing non-native trees
in order to provide flexibility along the margins. He described it as still restrictive, since a non-
native tree could have just as much value as a native tree in terms of functions and
aesthetic/historic value.
Councilor Jordan spoke to developing a better definition of what was in the category of trees that
the City was trying to protect. She commented that one resident could have a stand of three trees
on his/her property that were not protected, while his/her neighbor, whose backyard ran into a
forest, happened to have three of those trees on his/her property line, which were protected.
Mr. Sandblast commented that there was a difference between designation and delineation, and
between a tree grove and an inventoried resource. He stated his understanding that only tree
groves that have gone through the designation process to receive an RC designation were part of
the Goal 5 program. Mr. Johnson concurred. He explained that the definition gave the City a
baseline to begin at in determining whether a tree grove was significant. He agreed that not every
stand of three trees merited protection; it depended on the grove's context.
Mr. Johnson observed that Goal 5 was the hardest of the statewide planning goals to understand
in some cases. He described the lack of certainty as an important issue, which the City could best
address in the long-term by delineating the resource boundaries on the ground.
Councilor Tierney asked if the restrictions on back yard uses applied to tree groves identified as a
resource but not delineated. Mr. Johnson stated that the Goal 5 protection regulations applied
only to mapped resources that went through the full designation process; inclusion on the inventory
did not constitute Goal 5 designation.
Ms. Frisbee clarified to Councilor Tierney that the back yard provisions about uses in the buffer
applied to a back yard with an RC designation, even if the resource has not been delineated.
Councilor Olson commented that if a property was mapped and designated, the property owner
could not do anything, whether the resource has been delineated or not.
Councilor Olson asked if the policy on mapping of buffers referenced in Consideration 5 resulted
from the housekeeping ordinance passed last spring. Ms. Frisbee recalled that the Council asked
to include the buffers on the map as part of the ordinance. She clarified that the restrictions
applied to buffers, whether they were on the map or not. She indicated that buffer areas were
generally 25 feet from the top of the bank, but staff ran into difficulty mapping them because the
resources were not uniform. Without delineating the resource, it was difficult to show the exact
location of the buffer on the maps.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Johnson that most cities regulated the buffer following
designation of the resource, regardless of whether the resource has been delineated. Mr.
McMurray mentioned that Oregon City's map showed 100 to 200 feet of green on both sides of the
resource in order to inform the public that there were buffers to the resources and avoid surprises.
Councilor Olson asked whether Oregon City, Tigard, and Wilsonville showed buffers for new
development and did not go into already developed backyards. Ms. Frisbee explained that each
city worked off the significant resources map provided by Metro to refine what needed protection in
its jurisdiction. She said that Metro looked at the resource and did not address whether
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 17
June 23, 2010
development has already happened. She mentioned to the Councilor that the City Arborist
pointed out to her that some cities did regulate tree groves, such as the City of Beaverton.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that this was a confusing topic. She mentioned the concern she
heard from the community that properties were arbitrarily and unfairly designated. She asked what
tripped a property owner's inability to use certain areas on his/her property. Mr. Johnson
reviewed the Goal 5 process. He indicated that it began with the inventory of resources (natural,
historic, cultural). The next step was determining the significance of each site, for which Lake
Oswego used the HAS system. Then, the jurisdiction used the significance determination to
decide which resources to protect.
He confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that the HAS score happened on the ground as part of
refining the baseline provided by Metro. Other state agencies provided baselines for communities
outside the Metro region.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that an RC designation meant that someone
physically assessed the resource, although not necessarily the individual property. She explained
that Lake Oswego used the ESEE analysis to determine whether to designate and protect a
significant resource. She mentioned that there were 50 contested cases during the 1997 mapping,
but not many dropped off the map after going through the Planning Commission and City Council
appeal process.
Mr. Johnson commented that he chaired the Planning Commission when it heard those appeals.
He recalled that the Commission took them on a case-by-case basis but in most instances, the
property owner provided no new scientific evidence to provide the Commission with a basis to
make any changes.
Councilor Olson observed that people could appeal to the Planning Commission to challenge
their scores only if they received notification that their property was mapped. She stated her
understanding that individual mailed notice was not required in 1997, and therefore, not everyone
received notice. She wondered what happened if the Planning Commission received only 50
appeals, most of which it did not grant, yet many properties were removed from the original maps.
Ms. Frisbee indicated that there were some properties that, following evaluation, staff agreed
should come off the map. She noted that, although individual notice was not required, the City
records for the ESEE analysis showed that the City did give individual notice in connection with
that process. She commented that the issue now was what options the City could provide property
owners who believed that their properties were improperly mapped. Staff supported the Task
Force recommendations to address that issue.
• Section 2: Designating Sensitive Lands, Part A: Process,
Issue 3: Ditches
Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that the Task Force recommendation relating to
ditches was one of the quick code fixes that staff could do immediately.
Councilor Tierney recalled seeing a picture last year of two ditches on either side of Goodall
Road that looked the same to him, yet only one was designated a resource. Mr. Johnson
explained that one was a manmade ditch dug from scratch while the other was a stream altered by
man to look like a ditch. Councilor Jordan recalled that storm water runoff also played a part.
One `ditch' had plantings to shelter the water that ran in there more frequently, while the other side
had occasional water draining off the property, and functioned as a `ditch.'
Mr. Sandblast pointed out that the items marked with a `1' in the Task Force Recommendation
Summary chart in the staff report were the specific code fixes.
• Section 2: Designating Sensitive Lands, Part A: Process,
Issue 4: Inventory and mapping properties outside the city
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 17
June 23, 2010
Councilor Tierney questioned spending the City's limited resources on mapping these properties,
when the Metro maps could inform a property owner that his/her land had potential for sensitive
lands designation. Mr. Sandblast explained that the City has already agreed to do the planning
for the land inside its USB through the Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with the
County.
Mr. Sandblast referenced the continual complaint heard throughout the process that citizens did
not know that their land was designated. He questioned whether information at the Metro level
would be distributed to citizens any better than information from the local level. He commented
that if the Planning Department wanted to make the Metro map available, the map would provide
the information. He pointed out that the City has already mapped these resources through the
aerial and GIS maps. He observed that generating information off GIS was not a resource
intensive task.
Mr. Powell discussed the annexation -related reasons for mapping these properties. He mentioned
the opportunity provided to the property owner to challenge the designation upon annexation
through a quasi-judicial proceeding, which was in addition to his/her legislative opportunity to
challenge at the time of the mapping.
He explained that having this information in place allowed the City to apply all its regulations at
once to the property upon annexation. Under the best interpretation of Measure 49 (if the first
application of a regulation to a property diminished the property value, then compensation
occurred), the City could look at the economic effect of applying all the regulations at once, as
opposed to one at a time. This process usually found a net economic benefit to the property value
upon annexation. He mentioned that Measure 49 also had a specific exemption for regulations
applied as a result of a petition for annexation.
Ms. Frisbee commented that the Task Force included the language `as resources are available' to
give the Council the option to consider the resource and staffing demands entailed by this process.
Section 2, Part B: Modifications to the Sensitive Lands map,
Issue 5: Revising maps
Ms. Frisbee verified to Councilor Moncrieff that one of the immediate code fixes on p. 4 of the
staff report was a recommendation to set up a no fee process for landowners to request Sensitive
Lands map corrections and to adopt annual map updates. Councilor Moncrieff observed that
property owners wanted an appeal process that did not require hiring a land use attorney.
Councilor Johnson asked how the map review process worked. Ms. Frisbee explained that the
City sent out the Natural Resource Planner to evaluate a property reported as mapped in error. If
the Planner agreed that it was a map error, then staff logged it for correction in the map correction
process. She indicated that staff suggested an appeals process to the Planning Commission and
City Council for those property owners who disagreed with the staff finding. In that case, the
property owner should probably hire a professional to assist them in making a case for a mapping
error.
Councilor Johnson asked what scientific evidence a property owner needed to present during
his/her appeal. Mr. Sandblast pointed out that bringing scientific evidence to the challenge was
not cheap, which was something on which the City needed to be clear. A property owner could
either accept the staff finding or go down the appeals path with the understanding that even a no
fee appeals process was not "free;" it would cost time and money.
Mr. Sandblast explained that the challenge needed to credibly question the City's methodology
and knowledge database and to talk in the language in which the designation was made. Moving
in the direction of a HAS score and an ESEE analysis took time and money.
Mr. Praeger noted the recommendation that the City reimburse a citizen for some of his/her appeal
costs, if the citizen prevailed in the appeal.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 17
June 23, 2010
Mr. Johnson indicated to the Mayor that many jurisdictions refunded the appeal fee if the citizen
prevailed but he knew of no jurisdiction that reimbursed a landowner for the price of an
environmental consultant. He commented that Lake Oswego sending out a staff person to the site
in response to citizen concerns was above and beyond what most jurisdictions would do.
Councilor Moncrieff asked how the Council could know whether the City staff person who did the
scoring and the property owner's hired consultant were equally qualified, especially when they
reached two different conclusions. Mr. Johnson indicated that qualifications were part of deciding
which evidence was most credible. He emphasized that ultimately it was up to the decision makers
to make that determination.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that if a group of people made a joint application to take their
properties off the map, then they could share the costs. She commented that if one person was
able to provide scientific evidence during an appeal, and later a group of his neighbors also
appealed, then they should be able to get that information. She speculated that knowing what
properties had been removed from the map previously could help people.
Mr. Johnson concurred. He mentioned that any new information available could also help with
Periodic Review. He remarked that new information has changed maps before, either adding or
subtracting properties. He commented that sometimes it was better to do a comprehensive
analysis of a larger area than a property -by -property analysis.
Mr. Sandblast pointed out that participating in the City's Periodic Review represented a golden
opportunity to the citizen questioning his property designation because the City was sponsoring
this effort and the hire of experts would not cost the citizen anything.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Tierney that the 150 1 B sites represented 150 individual tax
lots. She clarified that the approximately 1400 tax lots mapped today broke down into 1,000
single-family residential lots with the remainder as public, commercial, and multi -family lots. She
observed that the single family residential was the source of the conflict.
She commented that resource designated properties could have more constraints on them than
the resource overlays, such as steep slopes. She mentioned that the City had more properties
constrained by steep slopes than properties constrained by a 50% or more resource designation.
Councilor Tierney recalled that the public discussion included the question of why a property
constrained by steep slopes could also have a sensitive lands designation, which further restricted
the property development. Ms. Frisbee described the burden added to a building by steep slopes.
She pointed out that, with most of Lake Oswego developed, the only land left was the difficult and
expensive to develop lots constrained by a variety of factors.
Councilor Olson asked why the City needed to keep adding new properties if its program was in
substantial compliance with Metro Title 3 (Consideration 2). Ms. Frisbee indicated that adding
new properties was a Council decision related to the fairness aspect of not regulating all the
properties with resources on them. She confirmed that substantial compliance did not necessarily
direct the City to add properties. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that periodic review would
require looking at the issue.
Mr. Johnson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that it was possible that the City identifying 150
possible sites but not doing the analysis could result in DLCD returning the City's Periodic Review
asking why the City did nothing with those properties.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Olson that she talked to the GIS staff today about determining
how many 1 B sites would be RC or RP, which information she would share with the Council when
she received it.
• Section 2, Part B: Modifications to the Sensitive Lands map,
Issue 6: Resources identified through public comment — Oswego Lake
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 17
June 23, 2010
Councilor Tierney referenced the comment made last night that Mr. Johnson wanted to zone the
land under the lake. Mr. Johnson commented that he had been surprised to learn that the lake
was not zoned, because his 30 plus years of experience in land use planning in the Northwest was
that any large body of water was usually zoned in order to regulate any potential land uses. He
pointed out that someone could build a cell tower in the lake without having to go through any
zoning regulations if it was not zoned.
Mr. Johnson indicated to Councilor Tierney that the specific zone was up for discussion. He
commented that the zone would reflect the community vision as opposed to a land use goal. He
indicated to Councilor Olson that he did not think ownership, public or private, had anything to do
with whether land uses should occur or not.
Councilor Olson asked for clarification on the two Consideration 2s, which stated that Metro
considered the lake's primary function as flood storage and flood control and that development on
the lake was not considered a land use action, in combination with Recommendation 2, which
suggested assessing the designation of Oswego Lake as a Goal 5 resource and whether land use
and zoning regulations should apply to protect its natural resources.
Mr. Owens pointed out that the considerations were not findings of fact but rather information
provided to the Task Force. Councilor Olson commented that she took Metro's statement about
flood storage as fact. Mr. Owens conceded the point, but reiterated that the Task Force had
simply been reporting back the information presented to it.
Mr. Johnson commented that the Task Force heard consistently from the community that Oswego
Lake was important to the community and therefore merited some type of protection. Thus, the
Task Force recommended assessing the lake as a Goal 5 resource.
• Section 2, Part B: Modifications to the Sensitive Lands map,
Issue 6: Resources identified through public comment — Tualatin and Willamette Rivers
Councilor Olson asked how the condominiums on the river below Furnace Street fit into the
greenway provisions. Mr. Sandblast indicated that at the time that the condominiums went
through development review they were subject to the Willamette Greenway Provisions in effect at
the time. He commented that those provisions have been consistent since their adoption, and
spoke of mitigating and minimizing, landscaping and native vegetation, and buffering. Mr.
Johnson pointed out that the State did not consider every segment of the greenway the same;
there were different regulations for natural segments and developed segments.
Councilor Tierney asked if Recommendation 2 indicated that the Task Force did not think that the
Willamette Greenway adequately protected the resource. Mr. Johnson indicated that that
recommendation was in response to public comment heard at the open house. Mr. Owens
clarified that the Task Force agreed with all its recommendations, yet it made some
recommendations in response to the public comments that fell within its charge. He said that the
Task Force had no evidence that the greenway provisions were inadequate but it did not dismiss
the issue and thought it merited further evaluation.
Councilor Jordan asked if the Task Force heard comment from the public that further assessment
would bring better clarification to the public about how these resources were currently protected.
Mr. Owens stated that the Task Force did not do a comparison of the lands along the Willamette
River to see whether the Willamette Greenway provisions of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance would
better protect them because that was not in their charge. However, they did suggest that the
Planning Department look at that.
Councilor Olson commented that she shared Councilor Tierney's surprise about this issue, as she
had not heard the clamoring for it.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 17
June 23, 2010
Section 2, Part B: Modifications to the Sensitive Lands map,
Issue 6: Resources identified through public comment — Existing City parks and other
areas
Councilor Olson commented that she found it interesting to substitute `back yards' for `parks' in
the three considerations. She noted that if it was more important that a park provide landscaping,
impervious surfaces, and recreational facilities, then the City did not designate it as sensitive lands.
She asked if the Task Force discussed why that was allowed for City parks but not residential back
yards. Mr. Owens observed that that was a philosophical statement to which the Task Force could
not respond. Mr. Sandblast stated that the Task Force did not discuss that issue. He indicated
that the Task Force looked at encouraging the City to develop programs to be a leader in these
areas.
Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Councilor Johnson that the City could not build a soccer field on City -
owned property designated as sensitive lands. She confirmed that Consideration 3 addressed the
current conditions that existed.
• Section 2, Part B: Modifications to the Sensitive Lands map,
Issue 7: Gaps in the inventory
Councilor Tierney commented that he liked the recommendation to develop a watershed -based
approach. He asked, if the City implemented this recommendation, whether it could ratchet down
some of its other regulations in order to provide the balance that Metro was looking for. Mr.
Sandblast indicated that that was possible with the holistic approach of a watershed -based
program, although it would take a while.
Councilor Olson asked how the City measured the positive impact of protecting the headwater
function (Consideration 1). Mr. Harris explained that staff would look at whether the headwaters
had tree cover and percolation into the ground and how development impacted those functions,
followed by exploring how to compensate for the impacts through mitigation.
Councilor Olson asked for further discussion on Title 3 not identifying intermittent streams
draining less than 50 acres (Consideration 2), and on how Title 3 and 13 differed. Mr. Sandblast
noted that Title 3 was a regulatory -based program. He indicated that, as policy -makers, the
Council needed to decide whether to comply with the exact language of Title 3, which did not
require identifying these streams, or to regulate this community resource because it had value.
Mr. Harris pointed out that eliminating all streams that drained less than 50 acres from regulation
would eliminate almost the entire Springbrook Creek drainage basin from regulation. He described
adopting that one provision as wiping out the City's entire stream corridor regulation policy. He
mentioned that he did the analysis on the Springbrook Creek drainage area.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Tierney that there were patches of protected upland tree
groves not necessarily associated with riparian areas (about 15 acres), which staff could identify.
Mr. Sandblast indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Task Force did not envision a purely voluntary
approach if the City went to a watershed -based approach. He observed that there would always
be some element of regulation, either to comply with State or regional requirements or to achieve
community goals. He indicated to the Mayor that a watershed -based approach could not regulate
tree groves, as long as it was in substantial compliance with Metro. He commented that Clean
Water Services used a watershed -based approach for the entire Washington County basin.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned that staff was researching how big a budget Clean Water Services had
and what they spent it on. Staff's first look found that the budget was truly substantial. Mr.
Johnson concurred, noting that Clean Water Services acquired conservation easements and paid
people to plant trees to cool the water. He pointed out that a basin approach was about meeting
water quality standards.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 17
June 23, 2010
Councilor Tierney commented that he saw value in looking at a watershed -based management
approach because when people started to lose the linkage between water and sensitive lands, the
City began losing community support for its program. He speculated that showing the benefits of
the City's investment in improving its resources using citizen tax dollars would result in more
community support and a better chance to improve the natural environment.
He mentioned that he too tried to find out what Clean Water Services' budget was for this. He
pointed out that Clean Water Services served over half a million people, which meant that there
was a magnitude difference with respect to Lake Oswego. That organization might spend $10
million and Lake Oswego $500,000 for similar programs.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned that Clean Water Services' 20 -year budget appeared to be almost $100
million, which translated to $5 million a year. She indicated that $350,000 would be a rough
equivalent for Lake Oswego for that level of commitment.
Mr. Harris pointed out that one of the benefits of the watershed approach was the ability to look at
streams and upland areas and to measure the results in the stream to see if it was meeting a water
quality standard or not. If so, then the City could relax some of its regulations.
Councilor Jordan observed that if a current property owner was doing a great job and helping to
meet water quality standards, but the City had no regulations protecting the watershed, the next
property owner could do things to reverse that. Mr. Harris indicated that the two-tiered system and
looking at the net environmental benefit addressed that situation. Mr. Johnson commented that
this related to having the right long-term tools to meet Goal 5's mandate to protect as well as
inventory.
Mr. Sandblast pointed out that once the City did the analysis of the environmental issues in the
watershed, it next looked at land uses, development patterns, and density transfers within the
basin. This began to acknowledge property ownership, impacts to individual property owners, and
compensation. He described watershed -based planning as very broad. He encouraged the
Council not to let the price tag scare it because they needed a plan. He suggested working the
watershed councils to bring in the experts to start some of the analysis before committing
significant resources to developing the plan.
He mentioned that the Task Force heard from Clean Water Services that it was getting into
resource value markets where they might start trading the resource values for different uses in their
district.
• Section 3: Providing flexibility, Part A: Protection Measures
Councilor Tierney indicated that this section confused him in regards to applicability with its
references to an optional development review process (Recommendation 2, p.16), alternate
discretionary development standards to allow for flexibility (sub 2), and the discretionary review
process (Recommendation 6), plus the net environmental benefit. Mr. Owens clarified that all
these elements were mechanisms that would work collectively to provide increased flexibility. He
indicated that, while theoretically a property owner could choose not to do one of these, the Task
Force presented them as a package.
Mr. Sandblast explained that Recommendations 3 through 5 further described Recommendation
2, sub 1, while Recommendations 6 through 8 further described Recommendation 2, sub 2. He
indicated that the net environmental benefit was a measuring stick used with the alternate
discretionary standards process. He confirmed that everything was intertwined.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Safe Harbor approach was the clear and objective approach
of the Metro model code. If a property owner did not like that approach, then he/she could go to
the discretionary approach allowed under the Metro model code. Mr. Sandblast mentioned that
the program overall was an intertwined system that one could not pick apart.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 17
June 23, 2010
Mr. Sandblast commented that the Metro model code was helpful, informative, and very
complicated. He speculated that Metro's intent was for jurisdictions to use it as a resource and a
template to tailor into something simpler and more user-friendly. He pointed out that the model
code worked by exempting uses. He indicated that, while there were specific definitions that might
be transferable, the code itself was structured very elaborately. He did not think that the Task
Force advocated adopting the code as it was.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Task Force discussed setting percentages for encroachment
instead of specific square footages. Mr. Sandblast recalled that the Task Force decided that it
would not write code and stopped its discussion. Mr. Owens mentioned that square footage
standards were more commonplace and easier to administer. Ms. Frisbee recalled that the Task
Force discussion went right towards a hard number in connection with code clarity concerns and
clear and objective standards.
Councilor Jordan asked if staff marked these recommendations as timeframe 2 in its summary
table because they were code rewrites and would take longer to go through the Planning
Commission. Ms. Frisbee explained that staff did not know what a net environmental benefit
standard looked like, and therefore, implementing these recommendations would inevitably take
longer. She indicated that the issue was not the Planning Commission but rather the level of
complexity.
• Section 3: Providing flexibility, Part B: Net Environmental Benefit Approach
Mr. Sandblast left the meeting at this time.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:43 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
8:56 p.m.
Councilor Jordan asked what the Task Force meant by invasive tree species (p.17). Mr. Praeger
indicated that other cities listed around 13 tree species as invasive species. He mentioned the
Task Force looking at reducing barriers to stewardship -type activities, including eliminating the
permit fee to remove invasive tree species, such as English holly and English hawthorn.
• Section 3: Providing flexibility, Part C: Incentives
Councilor Moncrieff thanked the Task Force for these recommendations, which her neighbors
met with great enthusiasm.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Task Force discussed credits substantively, or looked at
Beaverton's program in any detail. Ms. Frisbee reported that Beaverton has not had many
applicants work with their credit program. She commented that the planning staff found the idea
intriguing because it related to promoting green building practices but the Task Force provided no
specifics, other than encouraging staff to look at credits.
Mr. Praeger indicated to Councilor Tierney that Beaverton incorporated removal of invasive
species into their habitat -friendly building practices. Councilor Tierney commented that he found
that those practices focused more on building something, while he saw the Task Force
recommendations geared more toward motivating someone to remove invasive species.
Councilor Jordan suggested working with property owners on erosion control, since it would take
a while for the native plant species to establish themselves following removal of the invasive
species.
Councilor Olson asked if the Task Force discussed property tax reductions or payments for loss
of value as incentives. Mr. Johnson indicated that the Task Force had some general discussions
along those lines but tax break programs involved a legislative change at the State level. Ms.
Frisbee reported that Mr. Boone researched other jurisdictions in the Metro region to see if any
had programs to promote tax breaks but none did. She clarified to the Councilor that the State
had authorizing legislation allowing local governments to develop a program, but, without a model
program, staff was not certain where to start in developing one.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 17
June 23, 2010
Mr. Harris commented that help with the permitting process would be an incentive for someone
wanting to do a riparian restoration. He indicated that getting State or Corps permits could be an
onerous task. Mr. Owens noted the fee reductions and fee waivers identified in later
recommendations.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned that the back yard visit with a naturalist program that the City partnered
with the Tryon Creek Friends on last year was very successful with around 40 visits. She pointed
out that one-on-one in someone's back yard was the best way to make progress. She indicated
that staff was looking at the costs of quadrupling the amount of participation each year. She noted
another possibility of arborist visiting people with tree groves to discuss concerns such as tree
health and thinning practices.
Councilor Jordan mentioned other resources, such as the Clackamas County Soil and Water
Conservation District and the County Extension Service. Ms. Frisbee noted the Task Force's
suggestion to look at a master naturalist certification program, such as the one that Oregon State
University was developing. She commented that a master naturalist would work more specifically
on resource protection during a backyard visit. Councilor Jordan suggested offering scholarships
to go through the program.
Mr. Johnson mentioned that the Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District had both a rural
conservation program and a relatively new urban conservation program. He said that the District
had many technical resources available that were not just for farmers. He noted that the
watershed councils worked closely with the District. He commented that there was a lot of long-
term potential at the District that cities did not look at because they assumed the District only had a
rural program.
• Section 3: Providing flexibility, Part D: Highly Constrained Lots
Councilor Moncrieff asked for more explanation on Recommendation 1, bullet point 3 (p.19). Mr.
Owens explained that the bullet points were examples of the potential flexibility possible with a
discretionary review process. He said that the Task Force looked at one site where putting more
density on it would provide more resource protection than permissible under the current standards.
He commented that the operative word was `investigate,' as the Task Force did not have an
opportunity to assess the consequences of allowing that exception but it thought that it merited
further evaluation.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Planning staff was comfortable with the recommendations leading
towards more discretion at the staff level. He described the hit on the planning staff from both
sides: having so much discretion that it was abused and having such tight regulations that there
was no discretion. Ms. Frisbee indicated that the staff was not 100% comfortable, which was why
they asked for time to develop the standards.
Ms. Frisbee discussed the problem of expectations. A discretionary process built the expectation
in the applicant that he/she would get what he/she wanted with more time and expense. She
noted that the Task Force was not recommending that, but rather it was recommending an
overarching requirement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate coupled with a net environmental benefit
evaluation. She agreed that exercising discretionary review could be a difficult situation for staff.
Councilor Jordan wondered whether the Comprehensive Plan review would answer these net
environmental benefit questions, if the discussion centered on zoning and density issues. Ms.
Frisbee indicated that the discretionary process did not say to allow more density but it could
provide a way for a fully encumbered lot to get more density. She commented that the density
issue was tough because of neighborhood expectations based on the zoning.
She reiterated that staff did not include this in the immediate fixes because they wanted to provide
more flexibility in the difficult settings but it was hard to see exactly how to do that. She noted the
flexibility allowed in the current code by permitting a property owner to protect only 50% of the tree
grove and by allowing setback adjustments when necessary to accommodate resource
protections.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 17
June 23, 2010
She mentioned the constrained feeling of property owners on very difficult to develop lots. She
wondered whether people with steep slopes felt equally constrained, which raised the issue of how
to make the regulations fair across the board. Councilor Olson commented that the difference
she saw between steep slopes and an overlay was that the City did not impose steep slopes on
the property owner.
Councilor Olson indicated that the reason given for retaining the current zoning standard for the
limited number of highly constrained lots (Recommendation 1) seemed backwards to her. Mr.
Owens explained that, given that these lots were highly constrained and that the City already
developed a standard that provided more flexibility than the code normally provided, it made sense
to the Task Force to retain that standard. He indicated that the Task Force researched this issue
at other jurisdictions and discussed a wide variety of standards but concluded that retaining this
standard made the most sense. He noted that the Task Force included the second part in
recognition that properties getting near the 75% threshold also needed more discretion.
Mr. Owens confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the Task Force did look at other methodologies from
other jurisdictions with respect to Recommendation 1, as cited in Consideration 4. He indicated
that he did not remember if the City of Portland standards were similar.
• Section 4: Improving the permitting process
Councilor Jordan asked if a citizen coming to the Planning counter with a question about a
property that might have been designated sensitive lands would deal with a specific person
throughout the whole process. Ms. Frisbee indicated that the two counter planners could field the
obvious and straightforward questions, but if the situation required an on site visit, then the Natural
Resource Planner would do that. While the Natural Resource Planner would help identify the
buffer area and help with delineation on a site with a buffer area, the rest of the application would
go through the normal process.
Councilor Olson commented that the first bullet on No. 12, suggesting a $3 per household utility
fee across the city to pay for public outreach, seemed out of place in a section discussing fee
reductions and fee waivers. Mr. Owens agreed that it was probably out of place. He explained
that this fee was an example of a method for financing public education and resource restoration,
and not a definite recommendation.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Olson that the Task Force discussed the reimbursement of
appeal fees for both designations and delineations. She clarified that if a resident lost the
delineation appeal, the property was not automatically delineated if the owner choose not to
develop it. Ms. Holen noted the clarification of Consideration 4 on p. 20 in the staff clarification of
Task Force findings (p.2).
Ms. Frisbee pointed out that the hefty fees associated with the code amendment process required
to modify a delineation prompted the Task Force to look at changing the fee structure in order to
make things easier on property owners. She mentioned that it might not be a complete waiver
because a Comprehensive Plan amendment did take staff, Planning Commission, and City Council
time.
Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the reimbursement of appeal fees for successful
appeals applied to both designation and delineation. She explained to the Mayor that this was a
Comprehensive Plan issue because removing a property from the inventory involved a map
change.
Mr. Owens commented that the staff clarifications report needed to accompany the Task Force
report because the Task Force did not always get the language right in presenting the concepts.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff would use the principles of the code audit to
re -vamp the sensitive lands chapter in the code, given how many code changes the
recommendations proposed. She mentioned that the code audit consultants recommended
another approach to simplifying the code that made a lot of sense. Councilor Tierney commented
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 17
June 23, 2010
that he would not support a consultant to do this work. He suggested waiting on this until after the
City made the many changes.
Councilor Tierney remarked that he had been able to read the Beaverton and Clean Water
Services documents but the Lake Oswego document was very challenging to understand, partly
due to its formatting. He suggested discussing the issue at a policy level.
• Section 5: Increasing public awareness
Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Councilor Olson that the City Code required filing a notice of
development restriction with the County for the RC overlay, and not the RP overlay. She explained
that staff has been requiring a similar filing for the RP overlay for the last five years as a means of
notifying potential buyers of the set aside areas in which no construction, such as a deck, was
allowed. She pointed out that if notice was not available through some other method than the
Planning Counter staff, it would make it difficult to improve customer service and the interaction
between the Planning staff and the property owners. She confirmed that staff required this only of
new development.
Councilor Johnson asked if Lake Oswego had many invasive trees. Mr. Praeger indicated that
invasive trees were common. He mentioned speaking with many arborists who expressed
frustration at the City's permitting process just to remove trees that everyone wanted gone.
Mr. Johnson indicated to Councilor Olson that the Task Force did discuss requiring disclosure
statements for the sale of properties, instead of only promoting them. He mentioned that it was not
an uncommon requirement all over the state for title reports, as it provided certainty up front and
eliminated surprises for those who read their title reports. He commented that the chances were
that a buyer would not know about any restriction on property not included in the title report until
he/she ran into it when trying to do something on his/her property.
Mr. Praeger mentioned that he suggested using disclosure statements based on his experience at
the City of San Francisco, which required a street tree disclosure statement when properties were
bought and sold. He commented that, given the other types of minute things disclosed, sensitive
lands seemed like a large issue that people would want to know about. Mr. Hedges commented
that it was a Catch-22 because advance notice could and has killed many property sales.
Councilor Jordan referenced her experience as a realtor in speaking of a State -mandated
disclosure statement in the Metro region at property transfers. She argued that this would level the
playing field across the region. She commented that this issue would not be a concern if
everybody did it. She suggested putting this item on the legislative agenda for the coming
legislature.
Mr. Owens confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the Task Force's intent was to promote the use of
disclosure statements if a property had an RC or an RP overlay on it.
Mr. Johnson indicated to Councilor Jordan that the current disclosure statements did not require
a property owner to tell a buyer if there was an overlay on the property. He explained that State
law only required a statement directing the new buyer to check with the local planning office
regarding the land use restrictions in place.
Mr. Owens indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Task Force's research did not find any examples
of property owners in any other jurisdiction contending that these kinds of disclosure statements
reduced property values. Councilor Olson recalled hearing, as Mr. Hedges apparently did, that
several sales have fallen through because the properties were mapped.
Councilor Tierney argued that if a property had an RC or an RP designation in place, then it was
only fair to disclose that information to a prospective buyer. He indicated that he did not see
disclosure as a deed -altering action.
Councilor Olson mentioned that she knew of several instances in which the seller had not known
that the City mapped the property and therefore could not disclose that information. She
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 17
June 23, 2010
referenced a disclosure statement she found in her papers that listed several items for disclosure
under a Title section. She commented that she did not know if that meant a seller only had to
disclosure things on the title.
Mayor Hoffman noted that the policy issue of this track was whether the City would require
including any overlay on a disclosure statement, including the neighborhood overlays.
Councilor Tierney observed that many of the Task Force recommendations spoke to making sure
that people on sensitive lands knew about it. Councilor Olson commented that the concern was
that a property without sensitive lands designation sitting next to a property with the designation
would sell, while the sensitive lands property would not sell.
Councilor Johnson commented that people should know what was required on their land no
matter what. She argued that the real issue that the Council should focus on was how to fix the
problems with the City's Sensitive Lands program. She agreed that people should know if a
property had sensitive lands on it.
Mr. McMurray commented that he saw part of the fix as getting rid of the words `sensitive lands'
and packaging the program in a more positive way so that people saw resources as a benefit as
opposed to a drawback. A property owner had both the responsibility for and the enjoyment of
trees and streams. He spoke of creating a positive environment within the City and the
regulations.
• Complementary Recommendations, Part A: Minimum maintenance standards
Mr. Owens indicated to Councilor Tierney that Recommendation 6 addressed the maintenance
requirements, although the Task Force did not go into detail. He acknowledged the Councilor's
point that the heading did not fully correspond to the contents.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Task Force envisioned the City leading by example as the City
doing this first before asking others or the City working concurrently with others. Mr. Praeger
concurred that the City should lead by example. He spoke of those not living on sensitive lands
doing what they could to help sensitive lands property owners maintain their properties, such as
removing invasive plants on their properties in order to reduce the pressure on the sensitive lands
properties.
Councilor Tierney asked why Recommendation 3 required an arborist and photo documentation
to remove an invasive tree. Mr. Praeger explained that the intent of this recommendation was to
protect the tree owner in the event that someone challenged the tree removal. He indicated that
the tree owner could provide either a photo or written documentation as sufficient proof.
Councilor Olson questioned the recommendation to add new regulations for tree maintenance.
Mr. Praeger commented that it had always struck him how the City had great protections for trees
and yet did not require tree owners to remove the ivy that could kill the tree. He confirmed to
Mayor Hoffman that the Task Force recommended adding to the tree code a requirement that tree
owners remove the ivy from their trees.
Councilor Johnson suggested looking at this recommendation in the incentives category as well.
Councilor Jordan commented that this recommendation reflected a holistic viewpoint of property
owners sharing the responsibility for maintaining the quality environment in Lake Oswego, rather
than focusing on a few properties in the city.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the best explanation for Recommendation 6 was Consideration 2.
• Complementary Recommendations, Part B: Prioritizing code enforcement
Mr. Praeger indicated to Mayor Hoffman that this last recommendation came from his experience
at Tigard, where the City spent a lot of time telling people to cut their grass. He noted that the
Lake Oswego Code prohibited any weeds over 10 inches tall in the entire city. He suggested that
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 17
June 23, 2010
it was better to focus the City's efforts on controlling invasive species than telling people to mow
their lawns.
Mayor Hoffman asked why requiring people to remove ivy and blackberries from their back yards
would help sensitive lands. Mr. Praeger described how ivy used trees as a crutch for spreading its
seed.
Council Questions
Councilor Olson referenced the appraisal report from Rick Walker found in the staff report, in
which he compared sales of sensitive lands properties. She asked if the seller had disclosed the
sensitive lands to the buyer. Ms. Frisbee said that she did not know.
Councilor Olson commented that Mr. Walker's report was meaningless to her without that
information because one could not conclude that sensitive lands did not influence the sale price
unless the buyer knew about the sensitive lands.
Mayor Hoffman cited his experience in working with appraisers as part of his job. He explained
that an appraiser assumed that the parties involved in a willing sale knew what the underlying
zoning was on a property. Councilor Olson recalled the trampoline case in which the buyer had
not known about the sensitive lands because the seller had not known and did not tell her. She
argued that if Mr. Walker used that case as one of the houses in his report, then he could not say
that the price was not affected by sensitive lands because that factor had been an unknown. She
held that it was not a legitimate comparison.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that the appraiser was available to discuss his assumptions with
Councilor Olson, if she so desired.
Mr. Powell answered the question Councilor Olson raised earlier about the non -applicability of
the Sensitive Lands Ordinance to resources located within the boundaries of a partition,
subdivision, planned development, or lot line adjustment approved prior to August 21, 1997 (LOC
50.16.01(6)). He noted the two conditions on that provision: 1) if the resource was identified and
protected pursuant to the regulations in effect at the time of approval, and 2) if the proposed
development was in compliance with the conditions protecting the resource at the time of approval.
He mentioned the direction to use the new standards if there was any modification that would
impact the resource or the protection measures.
He explained that if a subdivision was built under the old Lake Oswego Development Standards 3
and 4 (which related to stream corridors and wetlands), then the provisions of those standards
applied to the lots within that subdivision with those protected resources and not the newer
Sensitive Lands Ordinance provisions. He commented that the old development standards were
less flexible and some people preferred to be under the newer ordinance. He clarified that if that
subdivision had an upland tree grove that was not protected before 1997, then that upland tree
grove fell under the newer ordinance because it had not been protected and there was nothing to
grandfather in.
Public Outreach
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that Ms. Christie compiled all the e-mails received
from the public in the notebook. He mentioned that he has not seen any new e-mails come in
during the meetings.
Ms. Frisbee described the procedure for the Tuesday night meeting. She indicated that the panel
representing an array of views consisted of two members of the Lake Oswego Stewards Group,
one member from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, one member from the Audubon
Society, two Task Force members, and Mike Buck.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that if they had a large group of citizens show up, then the Council
would need to decide whether to reduce the allotted five minutes to three minutes. Councilor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 17
June 23, 2010
Tierney suggested setting either a five-minute or a three-minute time limit now so that people
could prepare their remarks appropriately.
Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Councilor Olson that each panel member had five minutes. Councilor
Olson questioned why Mr. Buck would get more time than any other citizen would.
Mayor Hoffman explained that the idea behind the panel was to allow issues to be brought to the
Council that might represent other individuals who did not want to testify before the Council but
would like their position expressed articulately.
Mayor Hoffman recommended limiting the time to three minutes in order to allow more people to
present their comments to Council. He emphasized that this was a public listening and not a
debate.
Councilor Olson asked why the League of Conservation Voters was included on the panel when
the organization as such has not been involved, although the person speaking for them has been
involved. Ms. Frisbee indicated that staff did not pick organizations to represent but rather a
representative array of viewpoints. She noted that the panel testified at the Council's pleasure.
Councilor Olson commented that she thought the panel ate into the citizens' time.
Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she thought that the panel was an excellent idea for
representing the viewpoints of citizens who did not feel comfortable speaking in public. She
encouraged citizens to send their comments to Council by e-mail or written letters so that they got
into the public record. Mayor Hoffman also encouraged the citizens to submit their comments.
Mayor Hoffman suggested that the Council keep in mind the staff groupings of the
recommendations as described on pp.4-5 of the staff report.
Councilor Jordan indicated that she would like to hear what people found positive about the
Second Look Task Force's work.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON November 2, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 17
June 23, 2010
LUM09WWO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
September 28, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. on
September 28, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan,
and Vizzini.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital
Development; Interim Police Chief Don Forman
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Briefing
Mr. Williams introduced Doug Obleitz, Project Manager, Shelley Lomax, TriMet, Dennis Van
Dyke, TriMet, and Karen Withrow, Metro. He mentioned that he was working on answering the
80 plus questions he received from Council regarding this project.
• Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Mr. Obleitz reported on the status of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). He said
that last week they submitted the third and final draft to the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) for its
review. He explained that the FTA owned the document and had to give permission to publish the
document in the Federal Register. He mentioned their expectation of receiving comments on the
third draft from the FTA expeditiously.
He mentioned that if the scheduled publication date of November 19 held true, the 45 -day public
comment period (including open houses and public hearings) would commence, closing on
January 7. He indicated that any comments received would go to the Steering Committee as part
of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) process in 2011. He reviewed the LPA process steps,
culminating with the LPA approval by the Metro Council in late winter 2011.
He explained that the LPA would be the selected mode from the three options analyzed in the
DEIS (no build, enhanced bus, and streetcar). He mentioned that it would also address the
selection of design options in Lake Oswego. He indicated that the handout summarized the three
workshops held with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and the feedback received from
the Lake Oswego, Riverdale/Dunthorpe, and John's Landing areas.
• Transit Project PowerPoint Presentation
Mr. Obleitz gave a PowerPoint presentation "Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project". He read
the list of issues covered with the CAC (Slide 1). He addressed a question frequently raised with
respect to ridership: How well did TriMet do in projecting ridership figures? He mentioned that
Metro was known nationally for its modeling.
He reviewed the information on Slide 2 showing Metro's projections for the various transit and/or
light rail projects in the Metro area and the actual ridership numbers. He noted that Metro has
done a good job of projecting ridership. He clarified that the Portland Streetcar numbers were not
from Metro, since that had been a locally funded project with no federal dollars and no requirement
to follow the FTA guidelines for modeling. However, the organization did its own modeling.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16
September 28, 2010
Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Olson that they used the terms `ridership', `boardings', and
`trips' interchangeably. He confirmed that a round trip would count as two trips, one going, and one
returning.
He explained that they projected the ridership figures for the three options for the Lake Oswego
transit line only to the South Waterfront because the streetcar currently went to the South
Waterfront, and they did not want the double counting that would happen if they projected the Lake
Oswego line into the Portland downtown. He reviewed the projected numbers (Slide 3). He noted
that the enhanced bus service was not an express service but rather an upgraded, faster service
for Line 35. He indicated that the streetcar had more riders the more it stayed within the Willamette
Shoreline right-of-way because it operated faster than if the alignment jogged onto Macadam Ave
and into the John's Landing area.
He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that the modeling did not find the ridership significantly different
in the John's Landing area.
He discussed travel times to PSU Urban Center, Portland City Hall, and Pioneer Square (Slide 4).
He noted that the travel times did not include the time it would take to get from a house in Lake
Oswego to the Lake Oswego terminus.
Councilor Olson mentioned hearing from others associated with this project that the FTA did not
allow the use of population numbers other than the current numbers. She wondered about the
2035 ridership numbers. Mr. Williams explained that the DEIS looked at the existing zoning and
what could potentially develop in those areas. The modeling showed the areas in Foothills not
zoned industrial, such as Oswego Pointe, that could re-develop to a significantly higher density.
He noted that the planning also included some development out in the Stafford area.
Councilor Olson commented that she had understood that the CAC had been told that the
ridership numbers did not include Foothills and Stafford. Karen Withrow, Metro, clarified that the
distinction was that the population employment forecast that informed the model looked at the
whole region, including estimated growth in Lake Oswego under current zoning and some
assumptions about areas such as Stafford, in determining the ridership numbers.
Ms. Withrow explained that, while the DEIS could only look at what was allowed under the current
zoning, Metro also looked at the economic development potential of changed zoning. She
confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the model included the capacity of Stafford under the current
County zoning, and not its potential as urban reserves.
Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Vizzini that they assumed the same number of stops for the
enhanced bus as for the streetcar from the Sellwood Bridge to the Tram, which were fewer than
the current stops of Lines 35 and 36. He reiterated to the Councilor that the ridership numbers
were based on current zoning, and acknowledged that there was interest in upzoning to higher
densities in areas along the Macadam corridor, such as in the John's Landing and Corbett
neighborhoods.
He reviewed the noise and vibration mitigations suggested by the tests conducted as part of the
DEIS (Slides 5-6). He mentioned that they could build low sound walls for streetcars because the
noise came at the wheel level. He indicated that TriMet was getting good at dealing with noise
issues in residential areas and had multiple methods for mitigating noise and vibration. He
explained that a ballast mat was the use of rock as a lining for the rails. He noted that the streetcar
currently was almost exclusively paved track in the South Waterfront area. He spoke of keeping
the wheels round (they developed flat spots sometimes) to reduce noise.
He indicated that mitigation of the potential noise and vibration impacts of the streetcar would
reduce the impacts to zero (Slide 7). He noted the areas potentially impacted (Slide 8):
Riverdale/Dunthorpe and John's Landing. He mentioned that the Willamette Shoreline track ran
within a dozen feet of some houses and decks in some locations in the John's Landing
neighborhood. He spoke of possible design changes, including moving the alignment to Macadam
or Riverwood Road. He commented that they found no noise and vibration impacts for enhanced
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16
September 28, 2010
bus (Slide 9). Councilor Hennagin observed that .01 % meant one bus for every 10,000 cars. Mr.
Obleitz indicated that the figure should be one bus for every 1,000 cars.
Mr. Obleitz presented a comparison of the transit capacities of the three modes on Highway 43 at
peak hour traffic (Slide 10). He noted that the streetcar could provide more carrying capacity than
the no -build or enhanced bus options. He discussed Slide 11, showing the Highway 43 peak hour
auto capacity. He observed that more buses on the road meant more interruptions to auto traffic
and frustrations for drivers.
He discussed the estimated annual operations and maintenance costs (Slide 12), shown in 2035
dollars. He explained that the streetcar cost almost $1 million less per year to operate than the
enhanced bus service because it had more people per operator, which meant lower labor costs.
He cautioned the Council that TriMet was fine-tuning these numbers now, and they could shift by
the time the DEIS came out. He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that streetcars had a longer useful
life than buses.
He discussed the estimated capital costs for construction (Slide 13), using 2017 dollars (year of
construction). He explained that the $379.6 million for the streetcar low was almost $289 million in
2010 dollars, while the $458 million for the streetcar high was $347 million in 2010 dollars. He
indicated that the enhanced bus figure of $51 million would be $37.8 million in 2010 dollars.
Councilor Olson observed that $400 million divided by $1 million a year in savings meant that it
would take 400 years to recoup the costs.
Mr. Obleitz explained to Councilor Tierney that finance referred to the local agencies having to
borrow money against the anticipation of the federal revenue appropriations. He said that the FTA
now considered those as eligible project costs. Escalation was the construction inflation estimate
of 3 to 4%.
He discussed the potential funding resources (Slide 14). He indicated that they based the federal
funds on an anticipated 60% federal funding level. He explained that they felt this was a
reasonable planning assumption because it was a smaller project than the $1 billion plus Portland-
Milwaukie project, which ended up at the 50% funding level for mega -projects. He emphasized the
critical piece of the local jurisdictions' ownership of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way ($94 to
$97 million in 2017 dollars) as part of the local match, which reduced this to a relatively low cost
project ($217 to $274 million in 2010 dollars). He noted that the right-of-way value in 2010 dollars
ranged from $71.6 million to $73 million.
Councilor Vizzini asked why the difference between the right-of-way land value and the sensitive
lands value was more meaningful in the streetcar low estimate. Mr. Obleitz indicated the other
right-of-way components that played into the equation. He explained that a cost in both the
enhanced bus and streetcar scenarios was the acquisition of right-of-way for a park and ride,
although the extent of that right-of-way varied with each scenario. He mentioned that if they
moved the streetcar alignment to Macadam, then they lost that portion of the Willamette Shoreline
right-of-way for the local match, and the Macadam right-of-way was not eligible as a local match
resource.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he had thought that the low estimate for the streetcar meant
keeping it in the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way all the way to Portland, and the high estimate
was for the Macadam and Riverwood alignment. Mr. Obleitz confirmed that the other factors
outweighed that difference.
Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Olson that, while they might get an updated appraisal soon,
they would not do a full re -appraisal of the right-of-way until they got closer to needing to establish
the value for the full funding grant agreement, which was perhaps two or more years away. He
said that they were using the 2008 appraisal value. Mr. Williams explained that the right-of-way
value was over $100 million, but he took out the property north of the project limits. That reduced
the available value to $85 to $90 million.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16
September 28, 2010
Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Tierney that there was no rule of thumb for estimating what
Lake Oswego's share would be of the local match dollars. He said that they would get into more
detail on the financing plan after the LPA decision. He explained that, in these sorts of projects,
they had to identify a variety of sources from different entities, and then figure out how to fill up the
pot. Although they could not project Lake Oswego's share at this time, they would be developing
alternative funding sources over the next 18 months and setting targets.
Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the local communities had full discretion to
decide how to pay for their share of the local share. He mentioned possible Lake Oswego funding
sources of tax increment financing, system development charges, local improvement districts, and
private investment dollars. He stated that he did not foresee using general fund money (property
taxes) for this project. Councilor Hennagin concurred.
Mayor Hoffman agreed that the use of property taxes or GO bonds as part of the local match was
a non-starter from the Lake Oswego side. He remarked that this Council might at some point feel
comfortable in formally stating its resolve not to raise property taxes. Mr. Williams commented
that one of his challenges in developing a funding strategy has been to look for funding sources
that would potentially benefit from this transit line.
Mayor Hoffman asked for a nod of heads from all Councilors agreeing that this Council would not
advocate for either a GO bond or higher property taxes to fund this project.
Councilor Tierney questioned how the Council could pick an LPA without knowing the financial
cost to the community. Mr. Williams clarified that the LPA decision did not mean that the option
selected would get built. That decision simply moved the process forward to the next phase of
preliminary design and funding strategy development. He said that the City would not commit to a
project until it had a full funding grant agreement with the FTA (probably in 2014), which required a
commitment from all the funding sources.
Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Tierney that, while staff would have a total amount required
for the local match (a number subject to change during the design phase), they would not have it
broken down into the individual contributions by each jurisdiction.
Councilor Olson asked if there has ever been an LPA selected and the project not done. Mr.
Obleitz mentioned that the voters turned down the original south -north light rail project. Councilor
Olson pointed out that that had been when voters got to vote on the project; since then, the public
no longer voted on these projects. She asked if it has happened since then. Mr. Williams said not
to his knowledge. He credited Metro and TriMet for laying the groundwork that allowed these
projects to get done by developing funding strategies that worked for each jurisdiction.
Mr. Obleitz presented a comparison of the three alternatives in six factors (Slide 15). He noted
that the streetcar had a better or best rating in all categories except capital cost.
He introduced Shelley Lomax, TriMet Executive Director of Operations and former Director of
Security and Safety, Dennis Van Dyke, TriMet Operations Department, Transit Police
Commander Mike Krebs, and Lake Oswego Police Chief Don Forman.
• Safety and Security
Ms. Lomax explained that she had been responsible for the safety certification on both the Green
Line and WES. She mentioned her understanding that the governance of this project has not yet
been decided. She stated TriMet's definition of safety: freedom from unintentional dangers (i.e.,
slips, trips, falls). She gave TriMet's definition of security: freedom from intentional dangers (i.e.,
the bad guys out to do harm).
She indicated that both TriMet's system safety and security plans were clearly laid out with clear
lines of authority and assigned duties, and updated annually. She observed that the Portland
police shared the security plan's goal to reduce crime and the fear of crime on their system. She
discussed the Transit Police, overseen by Commander Krebs of the Portland Police Bureau,
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16
September 28, 2010
serving under a contract. She mentioned that the over 50 sworn officers in the unit came from the
various jurisdictions served by TriMet. These officers informed TriMet of areas of concern within
their jurisdictions, and then returned to their units with an in-depth knowledge of how they could
partner with TriMet and other jurisdictions to make things better in their own communities in
general. She spoke of the TriMet Police Partners Forum, a quarterly meeting of representatives
from all the participating agencies to discuss what was going on in the community.
Mayor Hoffman asked for discussion of the safety concerns brought up at the last CAC meeting in
July. Ms. Lomax indicated that TriMet moved a small city every day. With over 315,000 rides a
day, they had approximately three reported crimes a day; more than half of those were minor.
Mr. Williams indicated that staff's intent was to share TriMet's model as one option, given that they
have not yet determined the governance of the Lake Oswego to Portland streetcar. He
commented that TriMet had a good system in place to insure that crime did not become a problem.
He mentioned that Chief Forman did some background research on different issues and talked to
professionals around the region about different systems.
Chief Forman reported on his research and the professionals with whom he spoke, including
Portland Streetcar, Wilsonville Police Chief Nick Watt, Commander Mike Krebs, and Mark
Johnson, Director of Transit Operations for the Eugene/Springfield MX enhanced bus system. He
indicated that Portland Streetcar relied on the Portland Police Bureau for any safety and security
issues on the line on an on call basis, and not on the TriMet Transit Police. He noted that the
Transit Police would assist if nearby, as any police department would do.
He reported that Chief Watt of Wilsonville described the WES (commuter rail line) as well-run and a
welcome addition to his community. He said that Chief Watt recalled that there were concerns that
there might be problems in a rough area near the terminus of WES, but there have been no
problems whatsoever in that area. In the past year, there have been three car prowls at the Park
and Ride lot.
He described the MX enhanced bus system at Eugene/Springfield as operating similarly to rail with
doors on both sides of the buses and platforms as well as stops in the middle of roadways. He
indicated that the ridership was mainly University of Oregon students and commuters. A private
security contractor provided security for the line with cameras on the buses and at the platforms
and stops and enforcement of the ridership ordinances and rules, including a no tolerance policy.
He mentioned Mr. Johnson's comment that they had more problems with the rest of their bus
system than on the enhanced bus system.
He commented that all those with whom he spoke indicated that the factors to consider with
respect to crime or problems were ridership and the area to be served. Ms. Lomax concurred that
one had to plan for what was going on in the areas to be served. She indicated that one of the first
things required by the FTA on these projects was a preliminary hazard analysis, which TriMet
conducted in partnership with the participating communities.
Chief Forman commented that the Lake Oswego community set the tone for what went on in the
community relative to quality of life issues. He noted that if the community saw a condition that
was not acceptable, they reported it and the police responded to take care of the issue. He
pointed out that Lake Oswego had a municipal court and therefore could address behaviors related
to transit in town on a daily basis.
• Council Questions
Mayor Hoffman noted the two items of concern raised by the community over the years with
respect to a streetcar: increased crime in Lake Oswego and transporting into the community
"undesirables" who might cause problems. Ms. Lomax indicated that that was a very common
fear. She recalled similar concerns expressed about the Yellow Line, which went through some
bad areas. She indicated that today things were flourishing around the Yellow Line on Interstate
and Lombard; it was a model of what transit could do for a community.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16
September 28, 2010
Commander Krebs agreed with Chief Forman that the community set the tone. He commented
that if he were a criminal, he could not come to Lake Oswego to commit a crime because of the
security cameras on the trains and buses and because Lake Oswego citizens paid attention to
what went on in their community and reported loiterers to the police. He observed that Lake
Oswego was not one of the communities that was more tolerant of some crimes.
Ms. Lomax indicated to Councilor Vizzini that the transportation mode (rail or bus) could make a
difference in crime activity. She said that they tended to have fewer problems on buses because
the operator was right there. However, on an overall per capita basis, it was a tough comparison
between rail and bus.
Councilor Vizzini commented that the Clackamas Town Center statistics showed an increase in
crime (primarily shoplifting) at the Center itself, as opposed to on the MAX line. Ms. Lomax
commented that she has not looked at the Town Center stats but she did know that the transit line
has seen a double-digit reduction in reported crimes in the last two calendar years.
Chief Forman indicated that he has looked at those statistics. He observed that statistical figures
were not always what they seemed. He explained that one had to mine police statistics deeply and
identify all the variables affecting any given statistic, such as shoplifting being up 140% at JC
Penney's at the Town Center. He mentioned that the information behind the Clackamas Town
Center statistics that would explain those statistics was not available.
He described how police self -initiated activity — in which the police targeted a certain violation or a
certain area for a concentrated policing effort— could create a misleading statistic. If the police
targeted talking on cell phones while driving and wrote 50 citations in one day, that did not mean
that there was a huge increase in the use of cell phones while driving in Lake Oswego.
Councilor Jordan mentioned hearing that the Clackamas Town Center management reduced its
security staff. She agreed that they had to look at this information from all sides, as one number
did not tell the whole story. Commander Krebs reported that the head of security at the
Clackamas Town Center told him that they were not seeing the Green Line bringing many
problems to the Center.
Commander Krebs indicated to Councilor Hennagin that his understanding from the Downtown
Central Precinct officers handling streetcar issues was that officers did not ride the streetcar but
rather responded on an on call basis. He mentioned that the transit police rode trains and buses
quite often. Councilor Hennagin observed that the streetcar was more like a bus in that the
operator could see what was going on throughout the streetcar. Chief Forman noted that the
private security for the MX enhanced bus system in Eugene/Springfield rode the buses randomly.
Councilor Jordan asked if there was a mix of local police and transit police handling the oversight
of the platform and terminus areas. Commander Krebs said that region wide the local police had
control over the bus stops in their jurisdictions. He described the transit police as an overlay for
the local police department. He indicated that the mutual aid rendered by one police department to
another also came into play.
Ms. Lomax mentioned that TriMet did pay attention to the statistics and moved resources to
address issues as quickly as possible.
Councilor Vizzini asked if TriMet saw spikes of criminal activity during certain hours of operation.
Ms. Lomax said that it depended on the type of criminal activity. She gave the example of car
prowls, which occurred most often on Wednesdays with few if any car break-ins on Thursdays and
Fridays. Commander Krebs indicated that they saw disorderlies on the train and bus after dark
and car break-ins during the day.
Mayor Hoffman asked if TriMet anticipated seeing any change in the number of incidents currently
reported for Lines 35 and 36 for bus rapid transit or streetcar in the future. Ms. Lomax indicated
that she expected any change to be negligible because Lake Oswego's current ridership
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16
September 28, 2010
population would transfer to whatever option the City provided, and Lake Oswego's bus riders paid
attention to what was going on.
Councilor Jordan asked who collected the information during the 45 -day comment period. Ms.
Withrow said that Metro would collect all comments and summarize them into a report with an
executive summary going out to the jurisdictions, the Steering Committee, and the CAC. She
mentioned that the report would also include a summary of all the outreach activities Metro
conducted throughout the DEIS process.
Councilor Jordan asked if each jurisdiction could decide how to conduct the LPA process or if
there a prescribed process. Ms. Withrow said that the local jurisdictions had discretion in
determining how to process the LPA through their jurisdiction. She indicated that Metro would
contact neighborhood, business, and civic groups as part of its public outreach. She mentioned
that the local jurisdictions also had discretion about holding a public hearing process related to the
local decision.
Mr. Williams stated that he would get responses to the Council for all the questions that the
members asked.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:03 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
8:13 p.m.
3.2 West End Building Site Study Work Group Report
Mr. McIntyre recalled that the Council's direction to staff in January had been to return with a
financing strategy for the West End Building (WEB). He directed the Council to the previous staff
report that presented background information that he would not cover tonight. He mentioned three
other reports in particular: the Strategy for the WEB and other City facilities (June 2009) (pp.11-
14), the City Manager's June 2010 report discussing his concerns related to refinancing the facility
(pp.5-10), and the Davis Hibbitts & Midghall report summarizing the focus group activity (pp. 15-19).
He introduced John Horvick, Davis, Hibbitts, & Midghall, and Brian Jackson, the architect
hired by the City to help the Workgroup.
He began the PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the steps taken earlier to move towards a
resolution (Slide 2). He noted that the Council's June 2010 discussion on the need for a
permanent use of the WEB came from his conclusion that he could not develop a refinancing
strategy until the Council told him what the building use would be, because the use dictated the
strategy. He noted the Workgroup composition and charge (Slide 3).
Councilor Tierney continued the presentation. He stated that he was the spokesperson for the
three Councilors who served on the Workgroup. He indicated that the Workgroup took its charge
from the guiding principle that the WEB was a long-term City asset. Its challenge was maximizing
this asset in light of other City issues. He described the elaborate brainstorming process used
(Slide 4), and the conclusions reached (Slide 4). He noted that the City Hall and Library sites were
the two sites of vacated land under consideration.
He commented that the Workgroup worked with the cards it was dealt. He indicated that these
scenarios were not those that the participating Councilors would have developed if the Workgroup
had had a clean slate. However, these scenarios addressed the constraints involved.
He reviewed the initial building blocks (Slide 5). He noted the foundation elements of a
freestanding building to house police, LOCOM, and the court, which addressed the seismic issues
for essential functions and security issues for the police department, and the existing Parks & Rec
uses retained in the WEB. He observed that the three options represented an increasing intensity
of uses on the site, including moving City Hall or the Library and enhancing the Parks & Rec
functions.
He reviewed the factors considered during the Workgroup's discussions (Slide 6). He noted that
they did not find any public/private shared use of the site that worked. He commented that the
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16
September 28, 2010
question of remodeling versus reconstruction was still open, as the costs were virtually the same.
He mentioned that the site did contain sensitive lands that were not developable.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the reference to turf fields at the high schools
meant including replacement turf fields in the funding package presented to the voters as a
potential assist to the high schools.
Councilor Tierney reviewed the reasons behind the Workgroup deciding to seek further input to
test their assumptions and scenarios (Slide 7). He noted that ultimately the public had to vote on
this. He described their best strategy as bringing forth a realistic option that the community could
and would support.
He reported on the results of the two focus groups (Slide 8). He indicated that the Workgroup
added two scenarios that were not part of the facilities strategy (sell and maintain the status quo)
for a total of eight scenarios to test the full range of options. He reviewed the specifics of the focus
groups (Slide 9). He mentioned that the Workgroup made a conscious decision not to attend the
focus groups (with the exception of Mr. Jackson) on the recommendation of Adam Davis. He
described the focus groups as a good, solid cross sample of the community that were as
statistically valid as any focus group would be.
He discussed the focus group findings (Slides 10 — 12). He mentioned that what the Workgroup
heard was, once the City provided the information, the community was prepared to make this
investment decision. He indicated that the information that the City would have to sell the property
at a $10 million loss influenced the lack of interest in selling the building. He remarked that this did
not mean that the citizens have overcome their objections and the strong emotions associated with
the purchase of the building, but rather that they have moved on and were ready to make the best
of it.
He noted the findings on the police/911 and library facilities (Slide 11). He mentioned that Mr.
Davis had both a summary report (pp. 15-19) and a detailed report (pp.21-83) on the focus groups,
which brought out some subtleties and nuances regarding the library. He commented that his
reading between the lines on the focus groups' strong opinion that the Council needed to make a
decision on the WEB was that the Council was going too slow on this issue.
He reviewed the information provided to the focus groups to guide their final choices (Slide 12).
He mentioned that one focus group member (who might have worked at the School District) had
stated that the Lake Oswego High School pool was susceptible to closure, which influenced
people. He said that the Workgroup confirmed that, while it was a possibility, a closure was not on
the immediate horizon.
He reviewed the narrowing down of the options (Slide 13). He explained that the Workgroup
eliminated moving the library to the WEB because of the opposition to moving the library out of the
downtown. He discussed not moving the ACC to the WEB. He described the three options (#4,
#6, and #8) forwarded by the Workgroup (Slide 14), which moved from the basic building blocks to
a full option. He noted the slight variations between the options (Slide 15). He indicated that the
cost ranged from $50 million to $75 million.
He discussed the key considerations as they moved from one option to the other (Slide 16). He
recalled the demographics presentation last week with the information that younger families looked
for additional services, such as a pool. If the School District closed its pool, then the community
might need to provide one.
Councilor Jordan recalled hearing after the close failure of the bond measure three years ago
that people did not want to pay for the building without knowing what the City intended to do with it.
She mentioned that her purpose in going through this exercise had been to develop a scenario that
laid out for the public how the West End property could fit in with the rest of the City facilities.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16
September 28, 2010
Councilor Tierney mentioned that the packet given to the focus groups included a schedule for
the different amounts a household would pay based on assessed value for the different borrowing
amounts across the different scenarios (p.19).
Councilor Tierney indicated to Councilor Vizzini that any activities existing at the WEB today,
including teen activities, would continue. He confirmed that the activity rooms and recreation
facilities were an enhancement of what already existed.
Councilor Tierney indicated to Councilor Hennagin that City Hall would fit in the west wing with a
surplus of space. He noted the assumption that, in addition to the municipal court locating in the
police building, the IT Department would locate there as well because one of their main functions
was to support 911 dispatch. He agreed that locating the municipal court in the WEB and having
police officers walk across the plaza to get to court was a possibility.
Mr. Jackson continued the PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that the Workgroup discussed
extensively the quality level and costs behind the design assumptions. He pointed out that the
renovation (as a complete investment in the building with the expectation of the building lasting a
long time) was the equivalent of building new. Therefore, the costs of the two options were very
close.
He reviewed the drawing depicting Option 4 (Slide 17). He pointed out that City Hall was on the
west side and the existing recreation programs on the east side. He mentioned that he included
future expansion areas in all three options. He noted the drop off community plaza area between
the WEB and the police station. He indicated the police secure parking lot next to their building
and the public surface parking lot to the north. He observed that turning the center bay of the WEB
into a public space would allow people to move from the north parking lot through the WEB and
over to the police station. He commented that the budget numbers were a rough order of
magnitude based on previous studies of renovation costs.
He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that these drawings were preliminary, and they could easily align
the drop off access road with the street across from it to form a full intersection.
He indicated to Councilor Jordan that he did not include the natural resources area to the north of
the parking lot in order to provide a large enough scale to see what was on the eight acres of
usable land on the fourteen acre site.
Councilor Hennagin asked if Mr. Jackson considered attaching the police/LOCOM section to the
WEB. Mr. Jackson commented that that depended on the options and future planning. He
pointed out that putting all the possible programs on the site in one building created a huge
building with security and circulation issues.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that this exercise had been to see how many uses could fit on the
property; design was not an issue at this point. She reported that the Workgroup used all the
studies done over the past four years in looking at building quality, sustainable buildings large
enough to handle the City's capacity going forward.
Mr. Jackson referenced the master spreadsheet (p.18) showing all the various numbers for the
various components. He observed that spreading the site development costs around to the
different program components along with the soft costs and other outside development costs
created a complicated calculation. He emphasized that the cost figures were orders of magnitude.
Mayor Hoffman commented that a $300,000 assessed value home would pay $120 a year to
cover the land cost of roughly $40 million.
Mr. Jackson reviewed Option 6 (Slides 18-19) that increased the program components on site to
include a lap pool and expanded recreation programs. He noted the single level parking structure
with parking on top needed to park the expanded uses. He mentioned the $37 million cost plus
$57 million in land costs. Councilor Moncrieff commented that this would cost $170 per year for
a $300,000 assessed value home.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16
September 28, 2010
Mr. Jackson confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that essentially the City Hall functions would move from
30,000 square feet to 45,000 square feet and the police/LOCOM would move from 9,000 square
feet to 17,000 square feet.
Mr. Jackson presented Option 8 (Slides 20-21), which added a leisure pool, a two court
gymnasium, and a full fitness center for the full expansion option. He noted the two level parking
structure with parking on top. He clarified to Councilor Vizzini that the two story volume spaces
would be a little taller than the rest of the building, but not significantly so. He mentioned the cost
with land at $79.4 million. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that this option would cost $226 per year
for a $300,000 assessed value house. She observed that there was a $50 spread between the
three options.
Councilor Hennagin commented that building Option 8 would cost less than building Option 4,
and then moving up to the next two options every five to ten years, because construction costs
would be more doing it in three stages. He observed that a phased approach would spread the
costs out. Mr. Jackson pointed out that the spreadsheet did not tell the Council what the market
would do. He noted that a three -stage approach involved constructing the skin of the building
three times plus the disruption costs and other soft costs.
Mr. Jackson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the chart on p. 19 came directly from Chip Pierce,
which the consultants used for the focus groups. He clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the costs for
construction were rough order magnitude numbers based on what was happening in the market;
they were today's numbers. He mentioned that the numbers did not account for any potential
escalation or inflation.
Mr. Horvick answered questions regarding the focus groups. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that
his team first contacted the participants by random phone number dialing. Their team then worked
to make sure that those who agreed to participate were similar to Lake Oswego's demographics
(pp.39-40). He said that no City staff attended the meetings, although Mr. Jackson was there to
present information and answer questions. He described the focus group process (pp.42-44). He
indicated to Mayor Hoffman that it was a 3 hour focus group (most focus groups were 1.5 to 2
hours), and that the participants received an honorarium.
Councilor Tierney explained that the chart on p.37, which showed the focus groups' rankings of
the eight options, helped the Workgroup decide on Options 4, 6, and 8. He indicated that the
Workgroup took guidance relative to next steps from the final comment on p. 22 that the
participants thought that the status quo unacceptable and they wanted the Council to make a final
decision.
Councilor Tierney continued the PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned Mr. Davis and Mr.
Horvick's comments that this issue was ripe and ready for a vote as early as May 2011, once the
Council made its recommendation. He observed that an informed voter would be very important.
He reviewed the next steps, calling for more refined information and detailed scenarios (Slide 22).
He mentioned developing design, construction, and operations costs and determining the structure
of the financing package and GO bond (Slide 23). He noted that Slide 24 was a potential timeline
for a vote.
• Council Questions
Councilor Olson asked if the Workgroup did any analysis for the operations and maintenance
costs of the options. Councilor Moncrieff said that they considered operating efficiencies
throughout every step of the process, including which services to combine for staff and energy
maintenance savings. She noted that the leisure pool would generate revenue to cover much of
the operating expense for a lap pool and other recreation programs. Councilor Tierney
commented that they did not get into that level of detail, although they intuitively factored in things
like the operational savings of renovating the building up to current energy standards. He
suggested modeling it.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16
September 28, 2010
Councilor Olson recalled that historically the City Manager has resisted efforts by the School
District to transfer their pool to the City because it was a money pit. She mentioned her
involvement in a study 18 years ago when she was on the Parks & Recreation Board, and
observed that pools were notorious for operating in the red.
Councilor Jordan concurred that the lap pool alone would not generate revenue, but argued that
adding the leisure pool would generate revenue because it could be rented out. She pointed out
that a consideration in addition to operating costs was what the community was willing to support
with its taxes. She observed that there was the potential for significant savings in operational costs
through the energy savings of an energy efficient building.
Councilor Olson commented that the total costs for all three options looked low to her. She
recalled the $60 million plan for a community center developed by the earlier Task Force. She
questioned whether $19 million was a realistic number for a major revamping of the WEB and $10
million for a new police building. Mr. Jackson indicated that the $10 million accounted for a new
police station at $225 per square foot. He mentioned that Kaiser just built a new station at $175
per square foot. He pointed out that the $10 million was up from SERA Architect's 2009 estimate
of $6.5 million. He observed that these numbers have been looked at closely with respect to the
previous estimates.
Councilor Tierney suggested a next step of refining and testing the costs given on the
spreadsheet. He observed that the Council did not want to ask for an amount and then have to go
back and ask for more. He reiterated the need to model these things in order to get comfortable
with the costs before moving forward.
Councilor Olson suggested re-looking at the estimated sale price of City Hall, given that the
figures were two years old and from the beginning of the economic downturn.
She referenced the facilities comparison on pp. 13-14. She asked why the WEB was not at the
end of its service life when the other city facilities were, and the WEB was a couple of years older
than City Hall and the library. Mr. Jackson explained that the insurance company took
exceptionally good care of this building, including doing seismic upgrades, because it saw it as an
essential service-type building needed to service its clients and to pay out claims in a catastrophic
event. He said that the only upgrade not done was up to the current seismic code for an essential
service building.
Councilor Jordan recalled that the costs coming from the original community center study
centered on building a new community center around the east side of the WEB. The task force
had not been able to decide what to do with the west side of the building. Mr. Jackson mentioned
that the building was about 116,000 square feet. Councilor Tierney argued that these were good
solid costs for this stage of the process, developed by the professional (Mr. Jackson) engaged to
come up with them.
Councilor Olson observed that Chief Forman did not sit on the Workgroup. She asked if the
Police Department has had any input on the findings. She asked if the Workgroup looked at any
other sites for the police/LOCOM building. Mr. McIntyre indicated that the Workgroup did not look
at any other sites. Councilor Tierney pointed out that the Workgroup's charge was to maximize
the West End property. He acknowledged that a police/LOCOM building was not the highest and
best use of the site, as stated by the Urban Land Institute study, but this was the reality.
Councilor Olson wondered whether the police might like to be more separate from City Hall.
Councilor Jordan commented that she did not think that the Department would oppose a site with
good access and a new secure facility.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that a skate park near City Hall and the police station
(similar to Tigard) was one of the considerations reviewed by Councilor Tierney. Mr. Jackson
pointed out that he included a potential skate park on Option 8 with its structured parking, which
would also work in Option 6. However, in Option 4, that land was needed for the surface parking.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16
September 28, 2010
Councilor Olson asked if the Workgroup discussed what to do if the City put out another bond
measure and it failed. Councilor Tierney said that they did not discuss that far along. They
wanted to put something forward that they had a high degree of confidence would pass.
Councilor Olson concurred with that goal.
Councilor Hennagin asked why the recommendation to re -grade the existing parking. Mr.
Jackson explained that they needed a 2% grade in the parking lot to meet the ADA requirements.
In addition, they wanted to increase the parking efficiency of the surface lot and provide enough
spaces to accommodate the programs. He acknowledged that this was not inexpensive but noted
that it cost less than structured parking.
Councilor Hennagin asked if there was a way to pose a bond issue to give the citizens the option
of either doing the whole project or Option 4 with the possibility of future add-ons. Mr. Powell
indicated that they could have two different measures contingent on what happened to the other.
Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Horvick if he saw an attitude in the focus groups respecting the
quality of what they expected to see in this building. Mr. Horvick said that what they heard was
`plan it right, do it right, and do it right the first time.'
Councilor Jordan commented that another possibility for discussion was seeing whether the
School District might want to move its administrative offices into the extra space in the west wing
and share the space with City Hall. She spoke to making sure that the people understood the
options with a bond measure. She framed one option as whether to sell the building for $10 million
and give up $10 million worth of services or pay X dollar amount per year to get a full service
facility that would provide something in the long run for all citizens in the community.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Workgroup did not factor into the discussion
about the leisure pool the fact that the property was only a mile away from the Mountain Park
leisure pool, which served 25% of Lake Oswego's population.
Councilor Olson asked if there was any information about the existing drainage issues in the
current lower lot. Mr. Jackson said that he had not been aware of those problems. He mentioned
his discussions with City planning about restoring the water quality treatment area to treat the
water before it entered the creek system.
Councilor Vizzini asked if the numbers on the sale of the City Hall property (p.17) included the
demolition of City Hall. Mr. McIntyre agreed that, given the condition of the exterior walls, it would
be prudent for the City to manage the building demolition. He pointed out that fine-tuning these
numbers was one of the next steps.
Councilor Vizzini mentioned that he would like a discussion about the community conversation to
come.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the Workgroup did discuss including the $2 million
needed for South Shore Fire Station in the bond. He recalled that Mr. Davis recommended not
asking the focus groups about it. He mentioned the possibility he saw of using the savings
accumulated over time by not paying interest on the WEB site out of the general fund to create
enough of a new resource to pay for the fire station out of the general fund. He observed that the
Council made the decision about what to include in the bond issue.
Councilor Vizzini spoke of trying to preserve a quality of experience in the planning of this facility,
and making it a place where people would want to come. He commented that, from a municipal
business point of view, the site could lose its attractiveness if it had too many activities on site.
Councilor Tierney recalled the discussions about a combination of public and private uses to
make the facility a 24/7 facility, but they did not find any that would work with Parks & Rec, the
Police Department, and City Hall.
Councilor Vizzini asked if the Workgroup considered adding stories for a four to five story building
at this site. Mr. Jackson indicated that the building was not structured for additional stories and it
would be cost prohibitive to add floors to the building. However, other buildings on the site could
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16
September 28, 2010
have more stories. Mayor Hoffman recalled an example from Vancouver, B.C., of a police station
with three to five floors of condominiums on top of it. Mr. McIntyre mentioned that the Workgroup
kept the constraint of the current zoning.
Mr. McIntyre mentioned two questions that the Workgroup asked Mr. Jackson: putting a
commercial use along Kruse Way and putting housing somewhere on the site. He indicated that
the site constraints meant sacrificing everything else to a commercial use along Kruse Way. Mr.
Jackson indicated that neither a commercial development nor housing on the site penciled out.
Mr. Jackson confirmed to Councilor Olson that the police building was three stories plus parking
underneath.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that these recommendations were what the Workgroup ended
up with after looking at the City's facility needs, at every possible configuration of what they could
realistically put on the site, at what made sense on the site, and at what affect a service going
away had on the site. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that these three options represented
the best options for solving the City's facility needs, given the cards in their hand.
Councilor Tierney commented that the focus groups had not had a problem with either renovating
the existing facility or building a new facility on site. Mr. Horvick concurred, noting that the
similarity in costs was the primary factor. Mr. Jackson recalled that the groups always brought the
discussion back to saying that if renovating the WEB yielded a 21St century facility that would last
as long as a new building, then keeping the WEB was fine. Conversely, if building new structures
did not cost substantially more than a renovation, that was fine also.
Mayor Hoffman asked how one built a 50 to 75 year building. Mr. Jackson indicated that there
were many factors that went into the design and construction of a building, from the early planning
through the detail implementation to a quality builder. He pointed out that mechanical systems
would only last so long. He commented that one always hoped that a building would last 50 years
if not closer to 100 years.
Mayor Hoffman commented that some would bring up the condition of City Hall after only 30 years
and the School District's experience. He remarked that, at some point, someone from this table
would have to reassure citizens that the City knew what it was doing. He cited the City's recent
track record with the LOIS project, Hazelia Field, and Millennium Plaza.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned that one of his concerns was to design and build a building that
would last. He spoke of another concern of having sufficient expansion space to accommodate the
increased services and personnel needed to serve a larger population in the future without having
to re -build on a new site. Mr. Jackson commented that a large enough population (75,000 as an
example) raised operational issues and the probability of multiple facilities. He noted that the
building was originally designed to double the size of the west wing to the north, so there were
future expansion opportunities. He observed, however, that a site could only hold so much based
on its size.
Mr. Jackson indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a new building designed to add stories on top
of it would be a pro in the building a new building scenario.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Council needed any additional information. Councilor Olson
asked for more information on the water on site and better information on the pools. Mr. Jackson
commented that Option 6 would likely operate at a loss due to the lap pool but Option 8 had a high
chance of being a cost neutral facility because of the revenue -generating elements of the leisure
pool, the fitness center, and the rooms available for rent.
Councilor Tierney mentioned his expectation that the newspapers would cover this (the Review
and the Oregonian). He said that he and Councilor Moncrieff had an opinion piece coming out on
Thursday intended to establish the framework of what the Council was trying to do. He indicated
that feedback and questions received from the community should go to Mr. McIntyre.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16
September 28, 2010
He referenced the public comment piece that Councilor Vizzini and Mayor Hoffman mentioned. He
indicated that he had a sense of urgency to do that which the community was waiting for them to
do. He described this as a positive sense because the focus groups heartened the Workgroup to
say that there was an opportunity to deal with what the City had and to move forward.
Mayor Hoffman spoke of developing a strategy to get the information on the eight options out to
the Council, to its Advisory Boards and Commissions, to community groups, and to the public. He
suggested a survey to verify if the Council was doing this work quickly and doing it right. He
commented that the Council did not want to put a forwarded option on the ballot if 55% of the
people preferred one of the other options.
Councilor Moncrieff discussed her concern about time, given that they needed at least six
months before the vote to get the information out. Therefore, the Council had to decide in October
on the one option to put on the ballot for a May 2011 election. She expressed her hope that the
Council could agree to move forward on refining the financial and other information and answering
Councilor Olson's questions on the forwarded options. She explained that the Workgroup
eliminated Option 3 because they felt strongly that the library was the economic driver and civic
presence critical to the Downtown.
Councilor Jordan mentioned the focus groups' minimal knowledge about the North Anchor study
and the possibility of moving the library somewhere else. She concurred that they needed to
educate the public and get the facts out about the costs. She agreed with Councilor Moncrieff that
the Council needed to make a decision. She spoke of consistently presenting one option, but, if
Councilor Hennagin's suggestion to put two options on the ballot was possible, then that was
another option.
Councilor Olson concurred with making a decision. She argued that the survey would be the
results of the bond measure. She pointed out that the bottom line was that the City needed to pay
for this property. Therefore, the Council needed to decide on what was the best option for
achieving that goal.
Councilor Vizzini remarked that this remarkable report provided a solid foundation for the level of
planning where the City was right now. He argued that they needed to make a decision soon
about one option and make the best case for it. He agreed with the analysis' finding that either the
City did the full complement of pools or it did no pools. He observed that the outlook was sketchy
for the plan to break even, even with a full complement of pools and sharpening up the numbers.
He wondered what the City would do if the plan did not break even.
He cited the context of the course of recent and anticipated development in the city and the
existing community constituencies in arguing that the Council could make a solid case for Option 8
as the best option in the long-term. He cautioned the City to be very conservative in its cost
estimates. He commented that a precinct analysis of the 2007 vote on the bond measure found
that the East End did not vote and that the precincts with the highest support for keeping the
building also had a high rate of defection in voting to pay for the building because of the unknown
risk.
He held that the electorate was ready to go. He suggested not going through a huge public
process to get to the decision but rather that the Council select an option, tighten the numbers up
quickly, and make its best case to the public.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he could support moving forward quickly as long as the seven
Council members all supported whatever the decision the majority made, and no one campaigned
against it, whatever his/her personal preference might have been.
Councilor Tierney commented that he saw an educational benefit in taking the options out to the
community as well as obtaining a reaffirmation of what the three choices were that made the most
sense to the community. He noted that each option had risks, with Option 4 having the lowest risk,
based on the sense of the focus groups. He concurred with Councilor Vizzini that they needed to
include the information on the long-term service aspirations over the next 30 years. He described
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16
September 28, 2010
Option 4 as managing what the community had, while the more risky Option 8 was leading the
community. He agreed with Councilor Hennagin's suggestion to ask the City Attorney to craft a
measure that allowed those options or perhaps Option 4 plus add-ons.
Councilor Vizzini indicated that he liked the structure of the two measures as one for the base
case and one for the enhancement to see what the people wanted. He argued that this facility was
part of the branding of the community as a special place in the region for both younger families and
active seniors. He pointed out that the $226 per year for Option 8 meant $20 a month for a state-
of-the-art facility. Councilor Tierney cautioned that this was in addition to all the other City fees
and taxes.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that she heard the group discussing only Options 4 and 8. She
suggested refining those two options with operating expense models and answered Council
questions. Staff could then take the two refined options round to the Boards with the Council
making a final decision by the end of October. She mentioned also asking Mr. Powell about the
double measure possibility.
Mr. McIntyre expressed his concern that the Boards and Commissions met only once a month.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Council could convene them. Councilor Hennagin
suggested holding a joint meeting.
Councilor Olson observed that the Boards and Commissions already shared the Council's
mindset. She suggested doing a survey similar to the We Love LO survey that the planners put
together so quickly, or asking the question on Open City Hall in order to get additional public
feedback. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she saw educating the public on the facts as
critical to this effort, but she did not see surveys as educational.
Councilor Tierney recalled that staff spoke to Adam Davis about whether the Council needed
more research to inform its decision, and Mr. Davis said no. The Council needed to decide what to
do and then inform the people so that they understood. He described going to the advisory boards
as part of that informing, while Mayor Hoffman described it as a check in or a reaffirmation of the
seven Council members' direction.
Mayor Hoffman observed that the focus groups, while informative and helpful, were not
scientifically and statistically valid. Mr. Horvick commented that the 16 people selected at random
were representative of the community but not the Council's advocates. Councilor Olson
mentioned that the focus groups were more valid to her than the advisory boards.
Councilor Jordan commented that it was important to remember that the focus groups ended up
saying that they would rather do everything at once rather than have the City keep coming back
asking for more money in a phased approach. She suggested checking in with the advisory
boards, the Chamber, and some other organizations in tune with the city to see what their reaction
was to the Council's direction. She concurred with Councilor Vizzini that it took courage to leap out
on the edge and go with the full option. She agreed that education in the next six months would be
key.
Councilor Hennagin agreed with focusing on Options 4 and 8 and dropping Option 6. He
mentioned hearing anecdotally complaints from families (who did not live in Mountain Park) having
to take their children to Tigard or southwest Portland for a recreation pool: they would like one in
Lake Oswego. He said that he wanted to know how many people would use a recreation pool and
how much revenue it would generate.
Councilor Vizzini suggested taking this out to the interest groups who would campaign either for
the bond measure or against it in order to identify the arguments that these groups would use for
and against the ballot measure. He spoke to doing this before October 31.
Councilor Tierney concurred with focusing on Options 4 and 8, with putting together an outreach
strategy for implementation in October, with getting answers to Council questions, and with setting
this for a decision at the last meeting in October. He agreed with Councilor Vizzini in terms of
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16
September 28, 2010
developing a strategy to reach those in the community both for and against the WEB to learn what
their arguments were. He asked Mr. McIntyre if this was doable before the end of October.
Councilor Olson questioned whether it was doable, given how much the Council had on its plate.
She emphasized that it was time to make a decision. She indicated that she liked the idea of
reaching out to groups other than `the usual suspects.' She commented that, while she was
interested in exploring the answers to her questions about Option 8, she did think that Option 4 had
the best chance of passing in this economy. She reiterated that her bottom line was getting the
building paid for and getting a new public safety building. She argued that the Council needed to
select the option with the best chance of passing in order to accomplish those goals.
Mr. McIntyre discussed his concerns about whether staff could accomplish this task in a quality,
thoughtful manner by the end of October, especially in light of everything that the Council and the
City going on right now. He indicated that staff could make it happen but he would have to pull
resources from other efforts. He pointed out that, while the discussion has focused on the May
2011 election, the Council could put the measure on the ballot whenever it wanted to.
He observed that this big decision has been on the Council's plate for many years. He advised the
Council, as policy makers and decision makers, to think this decision through thoroughly, looking at
all the strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, around all the options. He indicated his desire
that the Council feel certain that whatever it put forward would be successful, and that the decision
not feel rushed. He held that the Council as a whole needed to feel comfortable and supportive of
its decision as the right direction in which to go. He mentioned his concern that giving the voters
too many choices was a tactic that could dilute the message.
Mr. McIntyre suggested that he put on the next meeting's agenda an item to discuss when to hold
a public hearing on the Council's choice of an option. He indicated to Councilor Olson that he
presumed that the Council would want public input before making a decision from the dais.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON November 2, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16
September 28, 2010
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Paul Espe, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2559, 4747 Upper Drive (AN 10-0004)
DATE: October 18, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Ordinance 2559 (Exhibit F-1) annexing property located at 4747 Upper Drive
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The proposed annexation is owner -initiated and will result in the addition of 0.65 acres of residential land
to the City. This Council report describes the reasons for the annexation and provides basic background
information. The criteria for approving annexations and the findings in support of this annexation are
included in Exhibit B-1.
Owner/Applicant : Claude Shadburn
Location/Size: The subject property is 0.65 acres (28,314 square feet) in size. It is located on the north
side of Upper Drive, approximately 800 west of the intersection of Bryant Road. The address is 4747 Upper
Drive, Tax Lot 3900 (Tax Map 21E07DD). The property is shown on Exhibit F-1, Attachment A.
Existing Land Use: Tax Lot 3900 is developed with one single family dwelling that is currently occupied.
The parcel has direct driveway access to Upper Drive.
Neighborhood: The property is located within the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association.
Purpose of Annexation: The property owner initiated the annexation to connect to city sewer service.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Plan and Zone Designation:
The subject property is currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and is zoned Low Density
Residential R-8.5. This area is designated R-7.5 on the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and
will be zoned R-7.5 upon annexation.
Development Potential: The property is developed with a single family dwelling. Based on the R-7.5
zoning standards, the property can be divided into three parcels.
Sensitive Lands: There are no sensitive lands designated on this property.
Sewer and Water Service: There is a four -inch Lake Oswego water line and a six-inch Lake Grove Water
District (LWD) water line in Upper Drive. This is within the LGWD's service boundary. The existing house is
connected to the six-inch Lake Grove water line and will continue being a LGWD customer.
Service Districts: Upon annexation, the property will be removed from the Lake Grove Fire District #57,
the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the Surface Water Management Agency of
Clackamas County.
Issues: There are no known issues that would complicate annexation of this property
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The draft findings provided in Exhibit B-1 conclude that the proposed annexation complies with all
applicable State statutes and Metro code requirements. This annexation is for one parcel of approximately
0.65 acres. The estimated assessed value of the residential property is $144,996. Once the property is
annexed, the annual tax gain would be approximately $375.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of AN 10-0004.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
B. Findings and Conclusion
B-1: Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date
C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
D. Staff Report [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
E. Graphic Exhibits
F. Written Materials
F-1: Ordinance 2559 and Map
F-2: Annexation Petition and Application
G. Letters -None
Page 3
Reviewed by: <
Department Directo
Finance Director
City Attorn y
Alex D. Mcl re
City Manager
Exhibit B-1
Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations.
1. ORS 222.111(2) - Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and Procedure
for Annexation, Generally.
2. ORS 222.125 - Annexation by consent of all owners of land and the majority of
electors.
3. ORS 222.170 - Annexation by consent of more than half of the owners of land in
the territory to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory.
B. Metro Code
3.09.040(a)(1-4) Minimum Requirements for Petitions.
3.09.050 Uniform Hearing Requirements for Final Decisions
Subsections (b)(1-3) and (d).
FINDINGS:
A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes• Mergers and Consolidations
ORS 222.111(2) Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and Procedure for
Annexation, Generally.
ORS 222.111(2) states that a proposal for annexation of territory to a City may be initiated by
the legislative body of the City, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the
City by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. The applicant has petitioned the
City for annexation.
ORS 222.125 - Annexation by consent of all owners of land and the majority of
electors.
ORS 222.125 allows the legislative body of the city the option to waive holding an election on
the question of annexation within the area proposed to be annexed if all of the owners of land
in the territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory
consent in writing to the annexation. There is one registered Clackamas County voter who is
also the owner of the property residing on the property. He has signed the petition consenting
to this annexation.
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 1
3. ORS 222.170 - Annexation by consent of more than half of the owners of land in the
territory to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory.
ORS 222.170 allows the legislative body of the city the option to waive holding an election on
the question of annexation within the area proposed to be annexed if not less than 50 percent
of the owners of the territory consent in writing to the annexation. These owners must also
own more than half of the land in the territory to be annexed. Except for the right of way, the
property owner owns all of the property to be annexed and has consented to the annexation on
the attached annexation petition (Exhibit F-2). The proposed annexation complies with the
statutes.
B. Metro Code
3.09.040 - Minimum Requirements for Petitions.
(a) A petition for a boundary change shall be deemed complete if it includes the
following information:
1) The jurisdiction of the approving entity to act on the petition;
2) A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form
prescribed by the reviewing entity;
3) For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all
persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory as
shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk; and,
4) For boundary changes under ORS 198.855 (3), 198.857, 222.125 or
222.170, statements of consent to the annexation signed by the
requisite number of owners or electors.
The above information was submitted as required by Metro Code. The property
owner/elector signed the application and petition. The providers of urban services
include: Lake Grove Fire District #57, Lake Grove Water District, Clackamas County
Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas
County, Lake Grove Park District, and Tri -Met. Upon annexation, the City of Lake
Oswego will provide police and fire services as well as sanitary sewer service. The Lake
Grove Water District will provide water service. The current total assessed value of the
territory to be annexed is $144,996. The annexation application and petition are
attached as Exhibit F-2.
2. 3.09.050 Uniform Hearing and Decision Requirements for Final Decisions Other Than
Expedited Decisions.
(b) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a boundary change decision, the
approving entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the
criteria in subsection (d) below, that includes at a minimum, the following:
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 2
(1) The extent to which urban services presently are available to serve the
affected territory including any extra -territorial extensions of service;
The subject parcel is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City's
Urban Services Boundary. Metro Code section 3.09.020 defines urban services as
including sanitary sewer, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation,
streets, roads and mass transit.
Water: There is a four -inch Lake Oswego water line and a six-inch Lake Grove
Water District (LGWD) water line in Upper Drive. This unincorporated territory
lies within the LGWD's service boundary. The house is currently connected to the
six-inch Lake Grove water line and will continue being a LGWD customer after
annexation.
The City of Lake Oswego has entered into an agreement with the Lake Grove
Water District on June 7, 1994 for water services. The City and the District
agreed to construct an interconnection between the two water systems and that
the City will furnish and sell surplus water to the District under certain conditions
and set rates for District purchase of City water. The City Council also adopted a
resolution in 1994 (Resolution 94-22) indicating that the City would not withdraw
parcels from the district upon annexation. The territory will not be withdrawn
from the Lake Grove Water District upon annexation.
Fire: Lake Grove Fire District #57 provides fire protection services to the subject
parcel by agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. Upon annexation, the
territory will be withdrawn from this fire district and will be served directly by
the City. The Jean Road Fire Station located south of the territory to be annexed
would be able to respond to emergencies under the eight minute goal as
established in the Comprehensive Plan. There are hydrants located at the
northwest corner of Upper Drive and Bryant Road, in front of 4747 Upper Drive,
between 4800 and 4850 Upper Drive, between 4850 and 4900 Upper Drive, in
front of 16722 Boones Ferry Road and in front of 5003 Upper Drive.
Sanitary Sewer: The new sewer line in Upper Drive was completed in 2008.
Future connections to the sewer will be subject to paying a "line charge" as a
condition of receiving a connection permit. Under the present fee schedule, the
line charge is $17,842. A zone of benefit is a geographic area formed under a
service area to provide extended services not already being provided by any
other entity. Each property that connects to a line constructed under the
sanitary sewer extension program is obligated to pay a line connection charge to
cover the program cost.
Surface Water Management: There are no creeks, storm drains or drainage
ditches in the immediate area of the proposed annexation. No public storm drain
improvements are identified in the Public Facilities Plan. However, in conjunction
with the sewer extension project mentioned above, the City has extended a
storm drain line to Upper Drive from the surface water system in Lower Drive.
This provides the future opportunity to extend the drain system east and west
along Upper Drive. Until that storm drain is extended, however, any future
development will be required to manage site generated runoff on site.
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 3
Individual drainage systems may be required on the subject parcel for roof runoff,
and infiltration trenches along the sides of the roadway. The engineering staff
will need to review and consider any street drainage system needed for future
development.
Currently, the territory is under the jurisdiction of the Surface Water
Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC). Upon annexation, the
territory will be withdrawn from SWMACC and will be subject to the City's storm
water management regulations.
Police: The parcel is currently served by the Clackamas County Sheriff's
Department. Upon annexation, the territory will be withdrawn from the
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and will be served by the City
of Lake Oswego. The police department has reviewed the proposal and found it
to be in compliance with applicable regulations and did not indicate that they
would have any problems serving this area.
Parks: The City currently has 675 acres of park and open space lands, or 19.76
acres per 1,000 people. East and West Waluga Parks are located north of the
subject parcel. These two parks total 53.2 acres, and are located west of Waluga
Drive and south of Carman Drive. Amenities include a playground, picnic tables
and covered picnic shelters, restrooms, trails, paths and natural wildlife viewing
areas. The City's park system is able to absorb any additional population
generated by this annexation approval.
Recreation: The City has many recreation programs available to youth and
adults. The potential addition of this parcel would not affect the recreation
programs because any increased usage would result in additional revenue to
address any greater demand. The addition of one parcel to the existing
population of more than 36,000 residents would not detract from the City's
ability to provide adequate recreation programs.
Lake Grove Swim Park: The Lake Grove Swim Park, which is managed by the Lake
Oswego School District, operates a swim park located at 3800 Lakeview
Boulevard. The swim park is approximately 1.3 acres in size with restrooms, play
and swim facilities. This parcel will remain within the Lake Grove Park District
following annexation.
Transportation - Streets and Mass Transit: Clackamas County has jurisdictional
authority over and maintains Upper Drive between Bryant Road and Boones
Ferry Road. The County will retain jurisdiction of Upper Drive until more
properties annex to the City, whereupon the City will initiate a transfer of
jurisdiction.
Upper Drive is a two-lane 20 -foot wide asphalt paved street with a 40 -foot right
of way and no curbs or sidewalk. The much of Upper Drive was annexed in
October, 2007 under AN07-0002 and another small portion of Upper Drive in
front of 4575 Upper Drive was annexed in January, 2008. Upper Drive between
Bryant Road and Boones Ferry Road is designated as a local street.
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 4
The City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) does not identify any roadway,
pedestrian or bicycle improvements for Upper Drive. However engineering
street design policies call for pavement widening to achieve a minimum ten -foot
travel lane, a three-foot wide gravel shoulder, and a five-foot wide asphalt
pathway separated from the roadway by a landscaped planting strip.
The closest bus stop is located at the intersection of Upper Drive and Boones
Ferry Road. The area is served by TriMet bus Line 37, which currently operates
along Boones Ferry Road to the north, and Line 38, which operates along Kruse
Way to the north. Line 37 provides service between downtown Lake Oswego and
Tualatin, and Line 38 provides service between downtown Portland and Tualatin.
(2) A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with any
urban service provider agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 between
the affected entity and all necessary parties;
The City has entered into four ORS 195.065 agreements. The Agreements
include: 1) Clackamas County (for roadways), 2) Lake Oswego School District, 3)
Lake Grove Fire District; and, 4) the Southwood Park Water District. Three of
these agreements are applicable to this proposal and are addressed below.
Clackamas County Agreement: The City and Clackamas County entered into an
ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for roads in July 2003. The agreement
states that the City shall initiate proceedings for the transfer of jurisdiction and
maintenance to the City of all County roads within the annexed areas.
Lake Oswego School District: The City and the Lake Oswego School District
entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for park services in July
2003. The School District operates the Lake Grove Swim Park located at 3800
Lakeview Boulevard. The agreement states that City annexation of property
within the Lake Grove Park District shall not cause the withdrawal of the property
from the area benefited by the operation of the Lake Grove Swim Park.
Lake Grove Fire District #57: The City and District entered into an ORS 195.065
urban service agreement for fire protection in July, 2003. The agreement states
that upon annexation by the City of property within the District, the annexed
property shall be withdrawn from the District and the City shall provide fire
protection services. In addition, upon annexation of the entire remaining area of
the District by the City, the District shall be extinguished and the City shall be
charged with the functions and obligations of the District.
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 5
(3) A description of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with
the comprehensive land use plans, public facility plans, regional framework and
functional plans, regional urban growth goals and objectives, urban planning
agreements and similar agreements of the affected entity and of all necessary
parties;
Consistency of the proposed boundary change with comprehensive plan policies
is discussed in section (d)(3), below.
The City's Public Facilities Plan does not identify any sanitary water, storm water
or transportation projects in this area that would affect the subject territory.
There are no regional framework plans or regional urban growth goals or
objectives that are directly applicable to this annexation.
Compliance with urban planning agreements and other agreements with
necessary parties is discussed in section (d)(2), below.
(4) Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of
the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and,
The territory proposed for annexation will, by operation of ORS 222.520 be
withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District #57, Clackamas County Enhanced
Sheriff's Patrol District, and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas
County upon annexation.
(5) The proposed effective date of the decision.
The proposed effective date of the decision is outlined in the final section of the
findings.
(c) An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include findings
and conclusions addressing the following criteria:
(1) Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service
provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065;
ORS 195.065 agreements are discussed above under Metro Code Section
3.09.050(b)(2).
(2) Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or
other agreements, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065,
between the affected entity and a necessary party;
The Metro Code defines necessary party as "a county, city or district whose
jurisdictional boundary or adopted urban service area includes any part of the
affected territory, or who provides any urban service to any portion of the
affected territory." The list of necessary parties for the proposed annexation
includes:
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 6
■ Clackamas County
■ Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District
■ Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County
■ Lake Grove Fire District #57
■ Lake Grove Park District
■ Lake Grove Water District
■ Tri County -Metropolitan Transportation District
Lake Grove Water District : The territory lies within the Lake Grove Water
District. It will be retained within the District at this time pursuant to the
agreement between the City and the Lake Grove Water District on June 7, 1994
for water services. Further details can be found in section B. 2.(b)(1) on pages 2
and 3 of these findings.
Clackamas County Urban Growth Management Agreement/City of Lake Oswego:
The City currently has an urban planning agreement with Clackamas County. This
agreement ensures coordination and consistency between the City and County
comprehensive plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services and
managing growth within the Dual Interest Area. The subsections 6 and 7,
provided below, are applicable to annexations.
"6. City and County Notice and Coordination:
The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity to
participate, review and comment at least 35 days prior to the first public
hearing on all proposed public facilities plans, legislative changes to the
City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi-judicial land use actions adjacent to, or
in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The City shall provide notice
to the County of private or City initiated annexation requests within five
days of the filing of an application with the Portland Metropolitan
Boundary Commission."
This policy specifies that the City notify the County of an annexation request
within five days of when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. There is
no longer a Boundary Commission for the Portland Metropolitan area. Staff
relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code 3.09.030, which requires notice
20 days prior to the scheduled hearing for an annexation for all necessary parties
(other governmental entities), unless a shorter time is agreed upon. The County
is a necessary party under the Metro Code definition and has been notified.
"7. City Annexations
A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided for by
law within the Dual Interest Area. The City annexation proposals shall
include adjacent road right-of-way to property proposed for annexation.
The County shall not oppose such annexations.
B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the County
roads and local access roads pursuant to a separate road transfer
agreement between the City and county."
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 7
The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the
applicable ORS and Metro Code for the territories that lie within the Dual Interest
Area. The City and Clackamas County entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service
agreement for roads in July, 2003. The agreement states that the City shall
initiate proceedings for the transfer of jurisdiction and maintenance to the City of
all County roads within annexed areas. This subsection does not apply because
no right of way is proposed to be annexed with this application.
Lake Grove Fire District #57 / City of Lake Oswego Agreement: The City and
District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for fire protection
in July 2003. Further details can be found in section 6.2.(b)(1) on page 5 of these
findings.
Lake Grove Water District / City of Lake Oswego Agreement: The City and the
Water District entered into an agreement in 1994 . Further details can be found
in section B.2.(b)(1) on pages 2 and 3 of these findings.
(3) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for
boundary changes contained in the comprehensive land use plans and public
facility plans;
Comprehensive Plan Map: The subject property is currently under Clackamas
County's jurisdiction and is zoned Low Density Residential R-8.5. Pursuant to the
Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.05.025, upon
annexation, a City zone of R-7.5 will be automatically applied to the territory.
The City and County have coordinated their comprehensive plans within the
"Dual Interest Area" outlined in the City/County Urban Growth Management
Agreement (dated February 4, 1992 and updated November 18, 1997); hence,
the City/County designations have been determined to be compatible.
Therefore, this annexation is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan
Map.
Comprehensive Plan Policies: The relevant Comprehensive Plan policies are
addressed below:
Goal 14, Urbanization - Policy 10: The Urban Services Boundary is Lake
Oswego's ultimate growth area within which the City shall be the
eventual provider of the full range of urban services.
The parcel to be annexed is within the City's Urban Services Boundary as outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan. City services are available or can be made available
to the property and its annexation is consistent with this policy.
Goal 14, Urbanization - Policy 13: Ensure that annexation of new territory
or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Service Boundary does not:
a) Detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City
residents,-
b)
esidents,b) Result in property owners paying for urban services which do not
benefit their property:
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 8
The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of one 0.65 acre parcel
and abutting right of way. Service issues are addressed below.
Police: The addition of this territory will not detract from the City's ability to
provide police protection to the existing city residents. This parcel is currently
included in the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and will be
withdrawn from this district upon annexation.
Fire: This parcel is within the targeted eight -minute response time of the Jean
Road Fire Station as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The potential addition
of this parcel to the City will not detract from the Fire Department's ability to
provide fire protection to existing city residents.
Parks: The City has 675 acres of park and open space lands, or 19.76 acres per
1,000 people. Further information on parks can be found in section 13.2.(b)(1) on
page 4 of these findings.
Recreation: The City has many recreation programs available to youth and
adults. Further information about recreation can be found in section B.2.(b)(1)
on page 4 of these findings.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is currently available in Upper Drive. Further discussion
regarding sewers can be found in section 13.2.(b)(1) on page 3 of these findings.
Water: The Lake Grove Water District has not indicated that the proposed
annexation would impede their ability to provide water services to existing city
residents.
Transportation: The City's Public Facilities Plan does not identify any
transportation projects in this area that would affect this proposed annexation.
In regard to subsection b) of Goal 14 -Policy 13, the policy ensures that existing
city property owners do not subsidize newly annexed areas in the provision of
urban services. The City has established systems development charges, and
imposes rates that result in payment by users for different city services such as
sewer, water, surface water, parks and recreation, and transportation systems.
Therefore, existing city property owners will not pay for urban services that do
not benefit their property.
Goal 14, Urbanization - Policy 14: Prior to the annexation of non -island
property, the City shall ensure urban services are available and adequate
to serve the subject property or will be made available in a timely manner
by the City or a developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed
development. Urban services consist of water, sanitary sewer, surface
water management, police and fire protection, parks, and transportation
including: streets, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Community Development Code Section 50.64.015 requires that all development
be provided with the following utility services: sanitary sewer, water, sidewalks,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic control signs and devices, street lights,
streets, and TV cable. These utilities are now in place or can be put in place to
serve this property.
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 9
In the event that future redevelopment occurs, an applicant for development is
obligated to construct all necessary public facilities to serve their development.
[Community Development Code 50.87.020, see also discussion of consistency
with Public Facilities Plan (Section 2, Metro Code 3.09.050 above).
As noted above, police and fire services are available upon annexation. The
amount of protection provided will be similar to protection provided to other
city residents because the territory proposed to be annexed is not isolated from
other areas of the city.
(4) Consistency with specific standards or criteria for boundary changes
contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan; and
There are no Regional Framework Plan or Functional Plan criteria or standards
applicable to annexations at this time.
(5) Whether the proposed change will promote or not interfere with the
timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services.
Due to the proximity of the property to existing city services, this annexation will
promote the timely, orderly and economical extension of public facilities and
services. If and when additional development occurs in the area, provision of
public facilities and services will occur.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the criteria and findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that AN 10-0004
complies with all applicable criteria and should be annexed to the City.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
A. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section
34, the ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment.
B. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the
Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later
of:
the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State;
provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as
established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or
after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any City, district
or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the
annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after
the election.
AN 10-0004 EXHIBIT B-1
Page 10
ORDINANCE NO. 2559
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ONE PARCEL
COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 0.65 ACRES AT 4747 UPPER DRIVE;
DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING PURSUANT TO LOC
50.05.025; AND REMOVING THE PARCEL FROM CERTAIN DISTRICTS
(AN 10-0004).
WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Lake Oswego of the territory shown in the map in
Attachment "A" and described below would constitute a contiguous boundary change
under ORS 222.111, initiated by petition from the property owner as outlined in ORS
222.111(2); and,
WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from 100 percent
of the owners of land and not less than 50 percent of the electors in the territory; and,
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Lake Grove Fire District #57
would, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from that district immediately upon
approval of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced
Sheriff's Patrol District would, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the
district upon approval of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Surface Water Management
Agency of Clackamas County would, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from
that agency immediately upon approval of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, LOC 50.05.025 specifies that, where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires
a specific Zoning Map designation to be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such
a zoning designation shall automatically be imposed on territory as of the effective date
of the annexation; and,
WHEREAS, the staff report, dated October 18, 2010 which address applicable criteria, is
hereby incorporated; and,
WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with Chapter 14 (Urbanization) of the City of
Lake Oswego's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Revised Statutes
222.111(2); 222.125; and 222.170 for boundary changes, and Metro Code Sections
3.09.050(b) and (d).
EXHIBIT F-1
AN 10-0004
Ordinance No. 2559, AN 10-0004 Page 1
Annexation of one parcel 21 E07DD 3900
Now, therefore, The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Legal Description of Property to be Annexed: The real property described
as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake Oswego:
A tract of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 7, Township 2 South, Range 1
East of the Willamette Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon; more particularly as
follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 16, Bryant Acres (Plat #0383);
thence along the east line of said Lot 16, South 170 59' East, 275.40 feet to a
point on the north right of way line of Upper Drive (County Road #1009 - 30'
wide right of way);
thence southwesterly along said north right of way line, South 72° 0l' West, 75.0
feet to the southeast corner of that parcel described in deed to Herbert G. Leveck
and Ruby W. Leveck recorded March 15, 1955 in Book 493, Page 126, Deed
Records of Clackamas County;
thence leaving said right of way line, along the east line of said Leveck parcel,
North 17° 59' West, 170.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Leveck parcel;
thence along the north line of said Leveck parcel, South 720 0 V West, 75.00 feet
to west line of said Lot 16; said point also being the northwest corner of said
Leveck parcel;
thence along said west line of Lot 16, North 17° 59' West, 105.40 feet to the
northwest corner of said Lot 16;
thence along the north line of said Lot 16, North 72° 01' East, 150.00 feet to the
point of beginning.
Section 2. District Retention: The annexed area lies wholly within the following
districts and shall be retained within these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Park District
Lake Grove Water District
Section 3. District Withdrawal: The annexed area lies within the following districts
and shall be withdrawn from these districts upon the effective date of annexation:
Lake Grove Fire District #57
Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District
Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County
Ordinance No. 2559, AN 10-0004 Page 2
Annexation of one parcel 21 E07DD 3900
Section 4. Zoning Designation: In accordance with LOC Section 50.05.025, the City
zoning of R-7.5 shall be applied to the annexed area.
Section 5. Neighborhood Association Designation: In accordance with Goal 1 of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, this parcel shall become a part of the Lake Grove
Neighborhood Association immediately upon the effective date of annexation.
Section 6. Adoption of Findings and Conclusions: The City Council hereby adopts the
findings of facts and conclusions set forth in the October 18, 2010 staff report in support
of this annexation ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Dates:
a. Effective Date of Decision to Annex: Pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.050(f),
the effective date of this annexation decision shall be immediately upon adoption, unless
a governmental entity that qualifies as a "necessary party" under Metro Code 3.09.0200)
has contested this annexation, in which event this annexation decision shall be effective
on the 10th day following the mailing of this ordinance by the City Recorder to Metro and
to all necessary parties who appeared in this proceeding.
b. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance: Pursuant to Lake Oswego City
Charter, Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment.
C. Effective Date of Annexation: Following the filing of the annexation
records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be
effective upon the later of either:
1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or
2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of
State.
Provided, however, that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the
annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or
general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election
held by any city, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be
annexed, then the effective date of the annexation shall be delayed until, and the
annexation shall become effective on, the day after the election.
Section 8. Mailing Copies of this Ordinance; Metro Notice.
Within 30 days following the date of adoption:
a. The City Recorder is hereby directed to mail a copy of this ordinance to all
persons and governmental entities that appeared at the public hearing and requested a
copy of the ordinance following adoption.
Ordinance No. 2559, AN 10-0004 Page 3
Annexation of one parcel 21 E07DD 3900
b. The City Recorder shall mail a copy of this ordinance together with the
applicable mapping and notice fee charged by Metro pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.110, to
Metro Data Resource Center, 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland, OR 97232.
Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego held on day of , 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2559, AN 10-0004 Page 4
Annexation of one parcel 21 E07DD 3900
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
380 A Avenue
P.O. BOX 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
PHONE: (503) 635-0290
APPLICATION FOR
ANNEXATION
FILE NAME:�SUBMIT: REVIEW:
RESUBMIT:
FILE NUMBER(S): AI) /D -00 dy HEARING DATE:
CITY FEE RECEIVED: $ -:2010. !` METRO FEE RECEIVED: $
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN.: Lake Grove
CHECKLIST: ❑ Legal Description ❑ Title Report
❑ Assessor's Map ❑ Petition
COMPLETENESS DATE:
REVIEW:
CHECK #: `..* �—
RECEIPT #:_45_271
❑ Fees (City and Metro) ' ❑ Waiver
❑ Delineation of Natural Resources (if required) RE=CEIVED
❑ Resolution 04-38 given to Applicant on //-,r- e � (date)
PRINT OR TYPE ALL INFORMATION BELOLP,ityOf Lake OSWego
Community Development Dept.
APPLICANT ❑ USE MAILING ADDRESS FOR HEARING NOTIFICATION
Claude Shadburn
503 636-0374
YOUR NAME
PHONE #
BUSINESS NAME
FAX #
4747 SW U er Drive
SUITE
ADDRESS
SUITE
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
CITY
STATE ZIP
E-MAIL APPRESS
ycy
c -
SIGNATURE (ORIGINAL REQUIRED)
DATE
Note: I consent to an on-site inspection by an employee(s) of the City of Lake Oswego
PROPERTY OWNER ❑ (ADDITIONAL OWNER -SEE PAGE 2)
Same as above
YOUR NAME
PHONE #
BUSINESS NAME
FAX #
ADDRESS
SUITE
CITY
STATE ZIP
E-MAIL ADDRESS
SIGNATURE (ORIGINAL REQUIRED) DATE EXHIBIT F-2
Note: I consent to an on-site inspection by an employee(s) of the City of Lake Oswego
Revised: 04/07/05
AN 10-0004
ATTACH ANNEXATION PETITION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION FROM DEED
Annt~TInNA{-.P4UWFRTY O"FR r -I IF MnRF THAN 0NF OWNER ! ✓�Y�//� f 5 ��J��/lCIN�I T1
PROPERTYIZONING DATA
4747 SW Upper Drive
Address
Approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Upper Drive and Bryant Road.
Location Description
MAP & TAX LOT (DO NOT USE
(list one per line) -07 & BLOCK)
G: D
YOUR NAME
PHONE
t -7 H -
BUSINESS NAME
FAX #
ADDRESS
242Y
SUITE._
CITY
STATE ZIP
E-MAIL ADDRESS
•R7.5
SIGNATURE (ORIGINAL REQUIRED) DATE
Note: I consent to an on-site inspection by an employee(s) of the City of Lake Oswego
PROPERTYIZONING DATA
4747 SW Upper Drive
Address
Approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Upper Drive and Bryant Road.
Location Description
MAP & TAX LOT (DO NOT USE
(list one per line) -07 & BLOCK)
SITE
ACRES
ZONING/PROPERTY INFORMATION
EXISTING COUNTY
ZONING DESIGNA'ION
CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DES:GWION
CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE
TOTAL EX;STING
POPULATION
21 E07DD03900
0.65 AC
R8.5
•R7.5
136,673
One
TOTAL OF PARCEL AREAS.
ACRES
SO. FT
RIGHTS-OF-WAY
TO BE INCLUDED Upper Drive
Previous) Annexed
REASON FOR
ANNEXATION: Connection to City Sewer service
DESCRIBE NUMBER AND TYPES OF STRUCTURES ON THE PARCEL(S) (USE TAX LOTS AS REFERENCE):
One Sinnip Family Residence (20746 samare feet) constructed in 1930
Single Family Residential
EXISTING USE OFAREA TO BE ANNEXED:
PROPOSED USE OF AREA TO BE ANNEXED:
DESCRIBE SURROUNDING LAND USES (USE TAX LOTS AS REFERENCE)
NORTH—SFR
SOUTH —SFR
EAST —SFR
WEST --SFR
Revised: 04/07/05
I
1
�
i
7
i
I
N
c
'L
CL
C
(A
a
�
�
7
x
CLcr
3
C
�7 >
77w
A
�
V
�
z
CI)
C
V
c
a
aR
�
� o
CD
W
0
3
E.
CD
m
x
,�
o
4
3
�
z
�
d
�
0
�
z
N
�
O
4
"
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: David A. Prock, P.E., Deputy Project Director
LO -Tigard Water Partnership
SUBJECT: Award of a Personal Service Contract to Universal Field Services, Inc.
For Right -of -Way Acquisition Services for the Expansion of the
City of Lake Oswego's Water Supply System
DATE: October 7, 2010
ACTION
380 AAvenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Move to award a personal service contract in the amount not -to -exceed $399,844 to Universal Field
Services, Inc., to provide right-of-way acquisition services related to the expansion of the City of Lake
Oswego's water supply system.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This Council Report provides information regarding the recently concluded competitive selection process to
select a firm to provide right-of-way acquisition services in support of the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water
Partnership (the Program). Award of this contract by Council is required by the City's Public Contracting
and Purchasing Rules and State public contracting laws and regulations.
The Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership's Program Management Team is close to concluding the Project
Definition Phase that will more completely define the type, size, and location of each of the Program's
component projects. As a result of this effort, the locations of the various facilities are better defined to the
extent that we are now able to identify private and public properties that will require some type of
acquisition to allow construction of the facilities. Anticipated acquisitions consist of the following:
• Pipeline easements to allow construction and on-going maintenance of the facilities where they
must cross private and public owned property (not public rights-of-way, i.e. streets, etc.);
• CC&R releases for the properties located in the Maple Grove Plat laying to the south of the Water
Treatment Plant (WTP). These are necessary to allow construction of a portion of the new WTP
facilities on residential lots that are owned by the City, but where currently the CC&Rs only provide
for residential use; and,
Page 2
• Fee purchases to acquire a new pump station site for the replacement Bonita Pump Station.
DISCUSSION
On July 21, 2010, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide right-of-way acquisition services
to assist the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership's Program Management Team. In response to the
solicitation, proposals were received from the following firms:
• Epic Land Solutions, Inc., Portland, Oregon
• HDR Engineering, Inc., Portland, Oregon
• Tierra Right of Way, Ltd, Tucson, Arizona
• Universal Field Services, Inc., Salem, Oregon
A complete listing of the RFP respondents and their sub -consultants is included in Attachment A for
reference.
Proposals were reviewed and scored by the City's Source Selection Committee (SSC) consisting of the
following individuals:
• David Powell, City Attorney
• Jane Heisler, Communications Director
• David Prock, Deputy Project Director, LO -Tigard Water Partnership
The evaluation criteria and scores assigned to the proposals by the SSC are noted in Attachment B. Based
upon the review and evaluation of the four proposals received, the following two firms were selected by
the SSC to move forward to the interview phase of the solicitation process:
• HDR Engineering, Inc., Portland, Oregon
• Universal Field Services, Inc., Salem, Oregon
Interviews with the two noted firms were held on September 23, 2010. Based upon the outcome of the
interview process, the SSC was unanimous in its selection of Universal Field Services, Inc. to recommend for
Council approval.
In order to provide a basis for respondents to the RFP to develop their estimate of fee, a set of assumptions
were used regarding the number of properties that were anticipated to be involved in the acquisition
process. At the time of the services solicitation, the proposers were presented with the estimated number
and type of acquisitions as noted in Attachment C. At the time of the solicitation, it had not been
determined as to what approach would be used to address the issue regarding the existing CC&Rs for the
properties located in the Maple Grove Plat. It has now been determined that the appropriate approach is
to request each property owner of record in the Maple Grove Plat to sign a CC&R release that would void
that particular CC&R restricting development to only residential uses. It is necessary to obtain approvals
from a minimum of 75 percent of the property owners. Individuals making contact with the various
property owners need to be skilled property acquisition negotiators. The logical choice of individuals to
handle this additional work is the same acquisition team that is being recommended for award of this
contract.
As noted above, the work associated with obtaining the CC&R releases was not included in the original RFP.
Staff has negotiated with Universal Field Services, Inc. to add this additional item to their base scope of
work and to include it in their personal service contract. As noted in Attachment D the originally proposed
Page 3
fee estimate for the original scope of services was $324,480. The cost for this additional work is estimated
to be $75,364 for a total contract award NTE of $399,844. As can be seen from a review of the estimated
fees provided by the other two proposers, even with this additional work added to the recommended
contact with Universal Field Services, Inc., they still have the most competitive, estimated total fee.
FISCAL IMPACT
Award of this personal service contract represents the next step in a progression of actions and decisions
begun with the signing of the Agreement by the two cities in August 2008. Under this personal service
contract, the City will use Universal Field Services for services to be provided on a time and materials basis
with a maximum fee not -to -exceed $399,844 through June 30, 2014 (the anticipated duration of the
contract). Pursuant to the Agreement, Tigard's share of this amount is $213,797 and the City's share is
$186,047. Tigard will be billed monthly for their share of all program expenses.
The adopted FY 2010-11 Budget contains the needed funds to fully fund the City's share of these costs.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve award of a personal service contract in the amount Not -to -Exceed
$399,844 to Universal Field Services, Inc., to provide right-of-way acquisition services related to the
expansion of the City of Lake Oswego's water supply system.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Attachment A - Proposals Received to Provide Right -of -Way Acquisition Services
2. Attachment B - Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Matrix
3. Attachment C - Property Acquisition Assumptions
4. Attachment D - Proposer Fee Summary
Reviewed by:
r—j6,(-t �� , 44/n��
De ment Director
', (if there is a financial impact)
Finance Direct6-rl _
City Manager
(if legal issues)
Page 4
Attachment A
Proposals Received to
Provide
Right -of -Way Acquisition Services
In response to the RFP for Right -of -Way Acquisition Services, these proposals were received by the City
of Lake Oswego from the following teams (prime and subcontractor(s)):
• Prime: Epic Land Solutions, Inc., Portland, Oregon
Subcontractors: Westlake Consultants, Inc., Tigard, Oregon
Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc., Portland, Oregon
Cardno WRG, Portland, Oregon
Real Property Consultants, Portland, Oregon
Arvidson & Associates, Beaverton, Oregon
R. P. Herman & Associates, Portland, Oregon
Lawyers Title, Portland, Oregon
• Prime: HDR Engineering, Inc., Portland, Oregon
Subcontractors: Bluedot Group, Tigard, Oregon
William E Adams, MAI, Salem, Oregon
Title Company: not specified
• Prime: Tierra Right of Way, Ltd, Tucson, Arizona
Subcontractors: Pace Engineers, Lake Oswego, Oregon
Johnson Appraisal, Milwaukie, Oregon
Real Property Consultants, Portland, Oregon
Title Company: not specified
• Prime: Universal Field Services, Inc., Salem, Oregon
Subcontractors: OBEC Consulting Engineers, Lake Oswego, Oregon
Integra Realty Resources, Portland, Oregon
Title Company: not specified
Page 5
Attachment B
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
And Scoring Matrix
Criterion Description
Proposal Scoring
Epic Land
HDR
Tierra
Universal
Solutions
Engineering
Right of
Field
Way
Services
1. How proposer will establish, implement, and
15.0
23.0
24.0
22.5
sustain the right-of-way acquisition program
functions identified in RFP Section 2 for the
duration of the Program.
2. Their proposed Scope of Work and that the Scope
54.0
73.5
73.5
70.5
of Work reflects a thorough understanding of all
elements of the right-of-way acquisition program
being undertaken by the Program Sponsors.
3. Their proposed schedule and narrative, showing
51.0
70.5
81.0
69.0
that the schedule represents a thorough analysis
of project constraints, risks, event durations, and
project management efficiencies and
impediments.
4. Their proposed schedule of deliverables, showing
37.0
46.0
52.0
50.4
that the schedule best reflects an efficient and
effective means of conveying information to
project sponsors, documenting decisions, and
facilitating program delivery.
5. Their proposed services approach, demonstration
56.0
96.0
92.0
92.0
that their approach will successfully perform and
deliver the right-of-way acquisition program within
the constraints of regulations, schedule, and
budget.
6. Their ability to identify specific areas of concern
40.5
75.0
61.5
63.0
regarding delivery of the program within the
schedule and budget identified and the ability to
implement measures to resolve such concerns.
7. Their proposed fee to provide all services as
45.0
67.5
12.0
69.0
identified in this request for proposals.
8. Their proposed statement of qualifications
66.0
82.5
66.0
72.0
demonstration their firm information, team
member information, and references.
Subtotals
364.5
534.0
462.0
508.4
9. (Interview) Their client services vision for the right-
0.0
48.0
0.0
72.0
of -way acquisition services program as articulated
in the interview.
Total Scores
364.5
571.0
462.0
580.4
Page 6
Attachment C
Property Acquisition Assumptions
For the purposes of estimating the level of effort and commensurate fee to conduct the
right-of-way acquisition services program, the following assumptions shall be used:
I. Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) —11 each
2. Permanent Pipeline Easements (PPE) —10 each
3. Combined Permanent Pipeline / Temporary Construction Easements (CPP/TCE) —
20 each
4. Fee Acquisition (FEE)— 2 each
Individual
RIPS
Raw
Water
Finished
Waluga
Bonita
Projects /
Water
Treatment
Water
Reservoir
Water
Acquisition
Pipeline
Plant
Pipeline
Pump
Type
Station
TCE
1
9
0
1
0
0
PPE
0
1
0
9
0
0
CPP/TCE
0
18
0
2
0
0
FEE
0
0
0
0
0
2
Estimated
05.2012
04.2012
04.2011
04.2012
05.2011
10.2011
Date to
Start /
09.2013
08.2013
04.2013
11.2013
09.2012
09.2012
Complete
Acquisitions
Table 1 Acquisition Type Distribution
Page 7
Attachment D
Proposer Fee Summary
Proposer
Original Estimated Base Fee
Epic Land Solutions, Inc.
$ 501,300 to $ 525,950
HDR Engineering, Inc.
$ 422,000
Tierra Right of Way, Ltd
Non-responsive (See Note 1)
Universal Field Services, Inc.
$ 324,480 (See Note 2)
Notes:
1. Proposer did not provide required estimated fee information.
2. Total estimated fee adjusted upward from $ 317,350 by $ 7,129.55 to correct math error.
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the Lake Oswego City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: David Powell, City Attorney
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-58 — Declaring the public necessity to acquire real property interests for the
Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership Project, and authorizing related activities.
DATE: October 27, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-58 declaring the public necessity to acquire real property interests for the Lake
Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership project, and authorizing related activities.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Construction of water supply facilities for the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership project will include
expansion of the water intake facility and the water treatment plant, as well as construction of transmission
pipelines. Although much of the project will be within the public right of way or on City -owned property,
there will also be locations where the City will need to acquire easements or other real property interests.
The City is committed to using every effort to negotiate voluntary acquisition agreements with property
owners. On November 2"d, the City Council will be asked to award a contract to a right-of-way acquisition
consultant that has been selected largely because of its demonstrated ability to work successfully with
owners in this type of project.
It is always possible that, despite the City's best efforts, a circumstance could arise that requires the City to
exercise its eminent domain (condemnation) authority in order to ensure that the public pays a fair price
for a pipeline easement or other property interest. State law says that, before using eminent domain, a
public entity must adopt a resolution declaring the public necessity and the purpose for the acquisition
(sometimes called a "Resolution of Necessity"), followed by an attempt to reach an agreement with the
owner. As a result, for any project for which condemnation is a possibility, it is advisable to adopt such a
resolution before approaching property owners.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Typically a Resolution of Necessity describes the specific properties being considered. However, because
the LO -Tigard Water Partnership involves linear utility facilities, and because the precise route is still being
refined, it is recommended that the City first adopt a generally -stated resolution. This will support the
initial contacts and evaluations. Additional resolutions may be presented for adoption after specific
acquisition needs have been identified.
Attached Resolution 10-58 is proposed as an initial, general Resolution of Necessity for the water project. It
has several components:
• The resolution declares that the acquisition of property for the LO -Tigard Water Partnership Project
is necessary and serves a public purpose.
• The resolution also declares that the project is planned, and will be located, in a manner that will be
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (Oregon law says that a
Resolution of Necessity is "presumptive evidence" of that compatibility.)
• The Resolution authorizes the City Manager or his designee to examine, survey, sample and test
real property (consistent with the authority granted by state law).
• Finally, the resolution authorizes the City Manager or his designee to "negotiate the acquisition" of
property for the project. The actual acquisition remains subject to City Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 10-58 declaring the public necessity to acquire
real property for the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership Project and authorizing related activities.
ATTACHMENT
• Resolution 10-58
RESOLUTION 10-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO
ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY FOR THE LAKE OSWEGO-TIGARD WATER PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, as authorized by Resolution 08-61, the City of Lake Oswego ("City") has entered into
an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tigard for the design, construction, ownership
and operation of water supply facilities ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to engage in activities that promote the health, safety,
benefit and general welfare of the public, including independently or jointly acquiring, owning
and operating utilities and water systems within and outside the city boundaries as called for in
the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City and its authorized assigns may be required to enter upon, examine, survey,
conduct tests upon and take samples from real property for the purposes of the Project, and to
negotiate acquisition of and acquire property for the Project;
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Lake Oswego City Council that:
Section 1. The Lake Oswego City Council declares that acquisition of property for the
Project is for a public purpose and is necessary in order for the City to carry out the Project.
Section 2. The Lake Oswego City Council further declares that the Project is planned, and
will be located, in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the
least private injury.
Section 3. The City Manager or his designee are authorized to carry out activities necessary
for examining, surveying, sampling and testing real property for purposes of the Project, and
are authorized to negotiate the acquisition of property for the Project. Acquisition of real
property shall be subject to the approval of the City Council.
Section 4. This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego Council held on the 2nd day of
November, 2010.
Page 1 of 2 — Resolution 10-58
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell
City Attorney
Page 2 of 2 — Resolution 10-58
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 2, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. on
November 2, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson (5:41), Moncrieff, Tierney,
Jordan, and Vizzini.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS
Communications Director; Erica Rooney, Asst City Engineer; Shawn Cross,
Asst Finance Director; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Dave Prock, Deputy
Project Director, Lake Oswego Tigard Partnership;
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 LOIS Update
Mr. Komarek presented photos of what the lake looked like in the Lake Down Phase. He
mentioned that today he took officials from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Environmental Quality on a tour of the lakebed. He reported that the officials were appreciative
of the opportunity to see the work and pleased that the City was following all the conditions of its
permits.
He showed some pictures of the lake level controlling pumping system with its 17 pumps mounted
on barges working to keep the lake level down so that the contractor can work on dry ground. He
noted that they would finish the installation of the Bryant Road debris sump next week.
Ms. Heisler reported that, following the discovery of contamination (diesel and gasoline) in the
west end of the lake, the team immediately contacted DEQ and began the evaluation and
containment process. She mentioned sending e-mail and postcard notifications to residents
impacted by the various work projects. She indicated that the phone calls these days expressed
concern about the effect of the heavy rain, signage, speeding trucks, and road closures. She
directed people to the LOIS Facebook page where the team posted a lot of videos and pictures.
She presented more pictures of the project work, including manholes and bypass pipes.
Mr. Komarek stated that the project was on schedule with no problems anticipated. He mentioned
their optimism that they would bring the project in at budget ($90 million).
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that additional silt has been entering the lake during the recent
rainfall. However, the team was implementing a number of best management practices in the lake
to trap the sediment and prevent it from reaching the Willamette.
Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the contamination had been in the lake for years
and had nothing to do with the use of trucks and other equipment on the project. Mr. Komarek
clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the contamination near the mouth of the Blue Heron Canal
had been buried under an impermeable cap of fine silt and clay. When the contractor excavated
for an access road, they smelled it and then noticed a sheen when water flowed into the
excavation. He said that they removed 800 tons of material for disposal at the Hillsboro landfill
site.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that, because the contamination lay within the City's
fee simple strip, cleaning it up was the City's responsibility.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10
November 2, 2010
Ms. Heisler mentioned that the other media contact they had with the LO Review, in addition to the
contamination contact, was on the issue of low oxygen levels in the lake and some sturgeon
coming up dead. She indicated that the rain was bringing the oxygen levels back up and they
thought that that would take care of the problem.
Ms. Rooney indicated to Councilor Jordan that ODOT discovered a problem under the bridge
that needed emergency resolution while taking advantage of the opportunity to inspect the bridges
while the lake was down. She said that the bridge structures themselves were fine; the problem
was scouring under the abutments.
3.2 Water Partnership Update
Mr. Komarek reported that they were working diligently on the permitting process, which involved
federal, state, and local agencies. He mentioned recently completing an in -stream habitat
assessment of the Clackamas River to support the biological analysis submitted to the Corps as
part of a joint permit application.
He reviewed the six projects that comprised the program: the river intake on the Clackamas River,
the raw water pipeline, the treatment plant, the finished water pipeline connecting the treatment
plant to the Waluga Reservoir in West Waluga Park, and the Bonita Road pump station.
He indicated that the team has completed the draft supply facilities capital improvement plan,
which the joint City Councils would review next week. He noted that the intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) with Tigard required both Councils to adopt the report before the project could
move forward. He explained that the plan documented the findings and performance criteria as
well as defining the starting point for design firms.
He stated that the design firm procurement was underway. He mentioned a workshop they held
last month, attended by over 70 individuals representing a variety of firms interested in learning
more about the project. He said that they issued requests for qualifications last month with the
intention of short listing up to six firms for each of the four design packages. He indicated that the
first RFP for a design package would go out early next year.
He reported that the project definition effort found that the costs have increased slightly over earlier
estimates due to the inclusion of ozone in any expansion of the water treatment plant, as
recommended by the expert panel and Citizen's Sounding Board. He noted that the estimates also
included contingencies for construction and environmental mitigation. He explained that, while this
would require a slight upward adjustment to the 2008 financing plan, the project definition
reaffirmed that the partnership was still a good business decision relative to the other supply
options considered.
Ms. Heisler indicated that their focus last month was on the Robinwood neighborhood, Maple
Grove Plat, and Waluga Reservoir neighbors, as the treatment plant and the reservoir were the two
primary facilities with the most neighborhood impacts. She mentioned the Good Neighbor Plan
workshop held last week with the Robinwood neighborhood. The team would continue that
discussion on December 1.
She noted that both Tigard and Lake Oswego were getting their cost of service analyses in order,
as it would impact rates. She mentioned a November 30 study session for Council and a public
hearing on the new fees towards the end of December.
She reported that the Committee of Four and the Oversight Committee recommended supporting
the Technical Committee's recommendation of a 38 million gallon pumping capacity and ozone, as
recommended by the expert panel.
Mr. Komarek reviewed the schedule. He noted that both Councils would adopt the supply facilities
capital improvement plan in December. He mentioned the favorable ruling that the City received
from the administrative law judge on its water rights; the issue was now waiting on the final order
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10
November 2, 2010
from the Department of Water Resources Director. He observed that the Council has already seen
the updated project cost estimates.
He indicated to Councilor Jordan that because Lake Oswego treated its water, it would not face
Portland's problem of discolored water from the Bull Run system. Portland did not filter their
source or treat their water, and therefore, the chemical substances in the leaves falling into the
water after the first heavy fall rain discolored the water. He noted that the water was fine to drink.
3.3 Review of First Quarter Financial Information
Mr. Cross reviewed the information on the General Fund (pp. 1-3). He mentioned that usually the
City received 86% of its property tax revenues in December because most people took advantage
of the 3% discount. He indicated that staff would watch how the property taxes came in because
the 1 % assumed growth the City budgeted for was turning out to be .3% growth in reality (p.1). He
noted that the City could pull funds out of contingency if necessary.
He explained that the large increase in intergovernmental revenues in the first quarter over last
year came from the $1.2 million received by the City in a September fee payment from Tigard. He
pointed out that staff no longer did the interfund transfers seen in previous budgets because the
City combined all those separate funds into the General Fund.
He mentioned receiving a question about worker's compensation. He explained that the City paid
the roughly $450,000 bill it received every July in July as a matter of fund accounting; there was no
pre -paid expenditure for fund accounting.
He indicated that the City made its debt service payments in December and January. He
mentioned that the City budgeted 3% interest but the rates were coming in just under 2% (p.2).
He mentioned a question about the transfers out. He explained that when the Community
Development Fund (Engineering and Planning) split into the Engineering Fund and the General
Fund (Planning), the $300,000 Bridgeport settlement had been sitting in the Planning part of the
Community Development fund. Staff decided that the money belonged in the Street Fund for
projects on Boones Ferry near Tualatin because that was what the money was for; they would
make that transfer later.
He reviewed the Water Fund (p.3). He noted that sales and services were down $113,000 due to
water conservation and a rainy June lowering water consumption (900,000 units down from 1.1
million units last year). He mentioned that lower bulk water sales was another factor, in that Tigard
purchased only $2,000 of bulk water instead of the $82,000 it bought last year.
He noted that the .7% transfers from the Tourism Fund to the General Fund reflected
administrative costs (p.3). He explained that the transfer from the Trolley Fund to Economic
Development represented a one-time transfer for work done by the Economic Development
department (p.3).
He reported that staff realized during the audit that, for reporting purposes, they needed to put the
LO/Tigard Water Project Fund under the Water Fund because it was a capital project within the
water utility. He indicated that staff would look at keeping it as its own fund or set it up as a
separate fund within the Water Fund, similar to the LOIS fund.
He mentioned the $957,000 FEMA grant the City received for the dam. He indicated that the City
has already started the process to reimburse the Lake Corporation for the work.
Ms. Rooney reviewed the two capital improvement program (CIP) matrices in the report. She
observed that the CIP spending to date/budget graphs were self-explanatory (pp.21-22). She
indicated that the composite project schedule (pp.23-24) showed the major milestones for each
project as known at this time.
She responded to the questions submitted earlier by Councilor Tierney. She explained that they
showed the pavement preservation projects (Work Order Nos. 139 and 140) as a whole in the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10
November 2, 2010
budget because they came out of the same funding source. Staff showed them separately on the
schedule because they occurred separately in time.
She indicated that, while it was possible for staff to spend all the pavement preservation funds in
this fiscal year, they were struggling with whether to spend all the money on small projects this
year or save it up for larger projects. She explained that staff used the information from the study
done this year to analyze the design needs for several major arterials and collectors in the area
and the information from the City's annual PCI study in deciding how to balance those needs. She
said that staff would come to Council with a report for this major decision.
She explained that ODOT's discovery of `scour critical' damage under some bridges, while taking
advantage of the lake down phase to do its regular bridge inspections for the City, necessitated the
emergency bridge repairs. She indicated that staff had set aside some money in the Engineering
Fund for this sort of unexpected emergency. They were hiring a consultant to determine the
proper fix, which they intended to complete before the lake level went back up. She noted that this
unexpected project has affected all other Engineering projects, and could cause some schedules
to slip. She reiterated that it was an emergency that the City needed to take care of now.
She said that it was not likely that staff would spend all of the annual water main rehab funds this
year. She explained that staff has been fully immersed in the Wastewater Master Plan project and
another wastewater capital project in Lake Forest. She spoke of adjusting the CIP for the next
year in order to not take on any new annual water main projects but instead do the projects they
delayed from this year. She indicated that they did not have the staff capacity at the level they had
hoped for.
She clarified to Councilor Olson that the annual water main rehab and other water projects were
separate from the LO/Tigard water project. She confirmed that staff would coordinate with the
LO/Tigard project team for those projects occurring in the area of the water project work.
She indicated that it was also not likely that staff would expend all the monies in the annual
wastewater project fund this year. She explained that staff was waiting on the CIP prioritization of
projects list, which the Wastewater Master Plan would produce, before spending the money. Staff
wanted to make sure that it was spending the money in the right way and on the highest priority
first, but that list would not be available for discussion until early next year.
Councilor Hennagin asked why the City did not have the expertise in its Engineering Department
to undertake the bridge analysis and repairs. Ms. Rooney explained that bridges were a
specialization within the engineering industry and required structural and hydrologic engineers to
do the work. The City currently did not employ those types of engineers.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he has never heard of Chow Corner (p.23). Ms. Rooney
indicated that Chow Corner was a pocket park located at the intersection of Jean and Boones
Ferry Roads. She explained that a previous development project in that area did not take the
sidewalks on either side of Jean Road over the railroad tracks. As a result of conditions of
approval for the Bridgeport project six years ago, the City had the designs to complete the
sidewalks and to enable bicyclists to cross the tracks safely also, which it intended to do with this
project.
Mr. Powell mentioned that Chow Corner was named after Tom Chow, the previous property owner
who dedicated the pocket park to the City 12 years ago.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he did not recall why the Council budgeted 1 % in property tax
receipts over the automatic 3% increase. Mr. Cross indicated that, while he was not certain what
growth the Council had anticipated, the two previous years had a 1 % increase in the down
economy. He said that the .3% translated to $200,000 less out of $29 million.
Ms. Rooney confirmed to Councilor Jordan that staff coordinated all City utility projects with
street projects in order to avoid tearing up the street for each project. She described how staff
worked with the LO/Tigard team's schedule in deciding when to do which projects within a quarter -
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10
November 2, 2010
mile swath of the proposed pipe alignment. With reference to the Qwest and Northwest Natural
Gas projects at the corner of Upper Drive and Reese Road, she explained that it was impossible
for the City to control private utilities' projects, although staff did its best to manage the timing of
those projects.
Councilor Tierney asked if staff thought it appropriate for the Council to adopt a capital budget of
a certain amount with the expectation that the City would not spend that money in the fiscal year.
He clarified his question by stating that the Council approved the pavement preservation, water,
and sewer programs to certain dollar amounts, yet staff was indicating in this first quarter report
that it was unlikely that the City would do the work associated with those dollar amounts.
Ms. Rooney pointed out that the CIP process for this year started a year ago. She indicated that
several things have changed since last January when the CIP was locked in, such as the
Wastewater Master Plan taking up more of staff's time than anticipated. She commented that staff
would get to a balancing point where they understood exactly what staff's capacity was against the
project dollars. She also discussed the effect of the project budget and the project construction
usually occurring in two different fiscal years. She indicated that staff has not yet perfected
budgeting a project in two different fiscal years, but they hoped to figure it out in the plan for next
year.
Councilor Tierney indicated that his expectation was that the staff would be more capable of
doing that task, as this was the second year in a row that the City has significantly underspent the
capital budget. He commented that the Council could have allocated those funds in a different
direction, or increased the staff capacity if it had known of the need to do so. He observed that, as
a policy making body, the Council voted to approve the dollar amounts requested. He stated his
expectation that staff would spend those dollars in that year. He encouraged moving towards
better planning so that the Council could be more realistic on where it went.
He recalled that the Council approved a PCI consulting company at the highest bid because staff
needed the work done in order to have projects in the pipeline. Ms. Rooney confirmed that that
tactic worked. She explained that staff had two separate studies done last year to inform the
upcoming Council decision on whether to stay with the annual pavement preservation projects on
smaller roads or to do some large projects. She indicated that staff would bring the study results to
the Council for discussion and direction.
Councilor Tierney asked if a capacity issue in City resources led to the gap in the ability to design
and plan projects. Ms. Rooney explained that the City has had new staff changes in the last 18
months, but now all the new individuals were up to speed. She mentioned that, while Engineering
was now fully staffed, they had only three engineers, who did more projects than CIP projects.
She stated that they had more needs than they had staff ability to do. She pointed out that it was a
question of how quickly the Council wanted projects done: the City could hire enough people to do
10 years' worth of projects in 10 years or do the projects over 20 years with existing staff.
She referenced the Councilor's comment about spending the money elsewhere. She clarified that
the City had to spend the money in each of the different utility funds in that utility fund. Councilor
Tierney observed that another possibility was not collecting the funds. Ms. Rooney reiterated that
they have been discussing the possibility of saving the funds up for larger projects.
Councilor Tierney indicated that what he thought was missing was the comprehensive lists. He
noted that the Council voted on a specific list of projects. He argued that if the staff did not think
that they could do those projects, then they should have told the Council that they needed to
allocate x amount of dollars this year for the beginning parts of the projects and then spike the
budget in future years. He cited reserving funds for PERS as an example.
He mentioned his concern about reserving General Fund capital funds for spending on future
capital projects when the City could spend that General Fund revenue on other things in the
budget. He commented that he thought they would be disappointing themselves if they did not
figure out how to reserve unspent funds and designate them for future capital projects.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10
November 2, 2010
Mr. McIntyre pointed out that staff did reserve the funds by default in that they went into the
ending fund balance for that particular fund, which became available as a resource for the following
year. He commented that what Ms. Rooney was trying to explain was that the City could spend all
the money on slurry seals and do those projects forever, or it could start reserving portions of the
revenue stream for bigger projects. He indicated that what he heard Councilor Tierney say was
that, as a Councilor, he was unaware of what those larger projects might be. He noted that it was
staff's obligation to help him better understand those projects.
He observed that, over the past two years, staff has become better at developing and managing
the City's Capital Improvement Program. He commented that it was not surprising that staff was
struggling to get the process perfected, given the new engineering management, finance
management, and City management staff that has come on board in the last 18 months. He
indicated that he was impressed with Ms. Rooney's ability to talk knowledgably about these
projects because she was new on staff a year ago.
He recalled that his ongoing commentary for two years respecting the General Fund structuring
was that if they reserved funds for larger projects, the monies would be there. He observed that all
the other funds had been properly structured. He acknowledged that there was a capacity issue,
which would continue to exist on the engineering side and which explained why they used
consultants. Councilor Tierney indicated that he supported the fine-tuning of the program. He
acknowledged that his comments were critical in nature but he expected staff to close the gap.
Councilor Tierney referenced Mr. Cross' comment that the City could take money out of
contingency to make up for unanticipated revenue shortfalls. He pointed out that contingency was
the City's reserve funds and did not represent current revenues. Spending those meant that the
City spent more money in the fiscal year than it generated in that fiscal year. He commented that
he was less cavalier about taking the money out of contingency.
Mr. Cross mentioned that, in the General Fund, there have been overtime payments in excess of
25% in police and fire trying to cover for shortages.
Councilor Tierney commented that he thought it best to keep the LO/Tigard water project fund
separate from the Water Fund for the policy level discussions. He pointed out that blending it into
the Water Fund skewed the figures so badly that they could not make comparisons. He recalled a
Council goal to keep the funds separate for record keeping and presentation to the Council.
Councilor Olson indicated that she understood what Mr. McIntyre was saying to Councilor Tierney
in terms of staff doing a better job of letting the Council know what the big projects were for which
they were saving up money. She argued that Councilor Tierney's point had been that the Council
budgeted specific projects in the CIP that were not being done. The question was why those
projects were not being done.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that Ms. Euler would present the five-year financial
plan to the Council in two weeks.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Moncrieff recognized Stephani Wax, Kevin O'Leary, Madeline Brewster, and Kavita
Rajani, the Youth Board members present at the meeting.
Councilor Tierney recognized Puja Bhutani, the new Planning Commissioner.
Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
4.1 REPORTS
4.1.1 Resignation from the Historic Resources Advisory Board
Action: Accept resignation of Marylou Colver from the Historic Resources Advisory Board
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10
November 2, 2010
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 10-63, appointing youth members on advisory boards
Action: Adopt Resolution 10 - 63, appointing Kevin O'Leary to the Library Advisory Board;
Josh Nudelman to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board; Madeline Brewster to
the Historic Resources Advisory Board; Kavita Rajani to the Transportation
Advisory Board; and Stephani Wax to the Natural Resources Advisory Board
4.2.2 Resolution 10-64, authorizing the establishment of commercial food waste collection
rates for Allied Waste of Lake Oswego
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-64
4.2.3 Resolution 10-66, making appointments to the Planning Commission
Action: Adopt Resolution 10 - 66, appointing Puja Bhutani to a four - year term ending
May 31, 2014; Todd Prager to the remainder of a term ending May 31, 2011; and
to designate Ryan Flynn as alternate should there be a vacancy due to attrition
through April 30, 2011
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 March 23, 2010, regular meeting
4.3.2 June 22, 2010, special meeting
4.3.3 June 23, 2010, special meeting
4.3.4 September 28, 2010, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Ordinance 2559, an ordinance annexing to the City of Lake Oswego one parcel
comprising approximately 0.65 acres at 4747 Upper Drive; declaring City of Lake
Oswego zoning pursuant to LOC 50.05.025; and removing the parcel from certain
districts (AN 10-0004)
Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He
asked if any Council members had any ex parte contacts, bias, or conflicts of interest to declare.
There were none. There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Espe reviewed the specifics of this owner -initiated petition to annex a .65 -acre property at
4747 Upper Drive. He said that the low-density residential R-8.5 County zoning would change to
low-density residential R-7.5 City zoning upon annexation. He described the available utilities
(p.112). He indicated that the annexation met all applicable State and Metro criteria (pp. 115-124).
He mentioned the service districts that the property would withdraw from upon annexation (p.112).
He said that the property would become part of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. He
recommended approval of the annexation.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10
November 2, 2010
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mr. Espe indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that all properties outside the city were currently on
septic systems. He commented that they usually annexed when a septic system failed. He
informed Mayor Hoffman that the applicant indicated to him that the septic system was failing. He
explained that the applicant had intended to annex in 2007 as part of putting his estate in order and
making it possible to connect to sewer in the future but family and health issues forced him to put
his application on hold.
Mr. Komarek explained to Mayor Hoffman that the City constructed the 8 -inch sewer as part of
the sewer extension program. When a property owner connected to that line, he/she reimbursed
the City for the expense of extending the sewer plus escalation over time from the date of the
sewer construction.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, he closed the hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Olson moved to enact Ordinance 2559. Councilor Hennagin seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors
Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
8. REPORTS
8.1 Personal Services Contract to Provide Right -of -Way Acquisition Services for the
expansion of the City of Lake Oswego's Water Supply System
Mr. Prock presented the staff recommendation to award a personal services contract to Universal
Field Services to assist the City in right-of-way acquisitions. He reviewed the competitive bid
selection process (p.136). He indicated that staff anticipated that $399,844.00 would be sufficient
to handle all the right-of-way services expected. He confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the contract
amount did not include the actual payments for right-of-way acquisitions.
He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that Universal would submit monthly statements for the time
and effort they expended. At the Councilor's request, he discussed the selection criteria. He
explained that staff provided their best estimate of the number and types of acquisitions needed.
The bidders used that and other information to determine their fee estimates. He indicated that
staff felt that the fees presented fairly represented the level of effort that would be needed, given
the skill levels of all four firms.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractor would handle the onsite contacts and
negotiations with the property owners, as well as draft the easements and obtain the signatures.
He explained that the subcontractors were typically surveyors, appraisers, and title report
researchers.
Councilor Hennagin asked how much negotiation went into these transactions. Mayor Hoffman
reviewed the typical approach used in determining the fair market value of an easement, which
involved an experienced appraiser.
Mr. Prock confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the selection criteria included more than the fee.
He mentioned past project work, qualifications of project members, ability to maintain a schedule,
ability to work with the City, and skill and ability to work with the public. He noted that the intent of
the selection criteria was to make sure that the contractor could do the job correctly and properly
without creating difficulties with the citizens for the project team.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that there was the potential for litigation if they could not
negotiate an agreement with a property owner. He mentioned staff's expectation that they would
be able to come to terms on all of these right-of-way acquisitions.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10
November 2, 2010
He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the contractor was paid on an hourly basis, not to exceed
the contract amount.
Councilor Jordan moved to approve award of a personal service contract in the amount
not - to - exceed $399,844 to Universal Field Services, Inc., to provide right - of - way
acquisition services related to the expansion of the City of Lake Oswego's water supply
system. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion
passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and
Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
8.2 Resolution 10-58, declaring the public necessity to acquire real property for the Lake
Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership Project and authorizing related activities
Mr. Powell explained that this resolution authorized the City Manager or his designee to enter into
negotiations for real property acquisitions or interest in real property for the LO/Tigard water
project. He mentioned that it also authorized going on to the property for purposes of conducting
investigations and analyses for acquisition purposes.
He commented that staff went through a careful process to select Universal as the contractor in
order to hire a company with a demonstrated ability to get to `yes' with the property owners and to
achieve a fair price for pipeline easements. Universal became the City Manager's designee
authorized by the resolution to conduct these negotiations.
He explained that the other reason for this resolution was that the City needed to have in its
toolbox the ability to exercise its eminent domain, or condemnation authority, before it became
necessary. He said that, under Oregon law, the City must first adopt a resolution of necessity
stating that acquiring this property was necessary and in the public interest before it could exercise
its eminent domain authority in the event that the City and the property owner could not agree on a
fair price.
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that State statute allowed cities to exercise eminent domain
outside their boundaries for certain types of uses, including water. He indicated to Councilor
Olson that the City adopted a similar resolution of necessity for the LOIS project. He
acknowledged that the City did so for specific properties needed for the LOIS project, and not in
this general fashion. He explained that the LOIS project negotiated its linear-type acquisitions with
the Lake Corporation before the project was well underway. He observed that most of the pipeline
ran through existing right-of-way or City utility holdings.
He pointed out that it has been some time since the City did such a lengthy linear project across
multiple jurisdictions. Therefore, staff decided internally, with the advice of outside counsel, that it
would be a good idea to get this resolution of necessity out of the way before doing its initial
explorations of right-of-way acquisitions.
He clarified to Councilor Olson that this resolution did not authorize contractors to go on to
people's properties. He said that it authorized the analysis on properties, but it still took property
owner permission for the City to come on to the property. He indicated that if a property owner
refused access to the property, then the City would have to get an easement through
condemnation.
Mayor Hoffman explained that a Clackamas County Circuit Court judge would have the role of
gatekeeper. Only through permission of the court system (a court order) could governments go on
to private property. Mr. Powell concurred, but emphasized that part of the reason for hiring
Universal was the hope that the City would not have to do that, and that this resolution would be
merely academic.
Councilor Jordan asked if the City was looking at any larger property acquisitions outside the
swath of the pipe alignment. Mr. Prock indicated that there was a strong likelihood of needing to
purchase additional property in the City of Tigard for the new pump station, as the current pump
station was shoehorned into an area that did not allow expansion. He confirmed to Councilor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10
November 2, 2010
Hennagin that they would acquire the property for the pump station in the name of the joint
venture.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the City might also have to acquire wider easements than the
easement it already had for the pipe alignment.
Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 10-58. Councilor Hennagin seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors
Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
10.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1
City Manager
10.1.1
Review of Council Schedule
10.1.2
Review of Council Digest
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
n
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
O March 17 2011
i
Ja . Hoffman, 104& r
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10
November 2, 2010