Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2025-04-15 O CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES m-- O April 15, 2025 oREoo� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person in the Council Chamber at City Hall 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Wendland, Verdick, Corrigan, Afghan (via video conferencing), and Wendland. Councilor Rapf is excused. Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder, City Recorder; Madison Thesing, Deputy City Manager; Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director; Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; George Burke, Chief of Police; Clayton Simon, Captain; Erica Rooney, City Engineer I Public Works Director; Will Farley, Assistant City Engineer; Ivan Anderholm, Parks Director 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Appreciation and Celebration of Laura Masterson. Mayor Buck formally recognized Ms. Masterson for her work as the Founder of 47th Avenue Farm, her contributions to the Luscher Farm Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Program, and her legacy of sustainable agriculture, environmental stewardship, and community engagement in Lake Oswego. He also noted her service on the Oregon State Board of Agriculture and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, where she brought a small-farm perspective to statewide agricultural and environmental policy. Ms. Masterson thanked City Staff for their integral role in the success of the CSA and acknowledged the Friends of Luscher Farm for their long-time support. Over the past 20 years, she was proud to have employed 250 people, grown more than 660,000 pounds of vegetables for the community, continued feeding people through COVID-19, ice storms, and the heat dome, and donated thousands of pounds of produce to the local food bank. She had put her heart and soul into the Luscher Farm CSA, and while sad to leave, she was glad to pass the opportunity on to the new farmers. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14 April 15, 2025 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Larry Kitchen, Commissioner, Lake Grove Water District, stated that although he had served on the District Board since 2013, he was speaking as a private individual. He provided a summary of his professional background and qualifications, the history and service area of the Lake Grove Water District, and the District's plan to switch its wholesale water provider from Portland to the City due to Portland's forecasted rate increase. Mayor Buck informed Mr. Kitchen his time had elapsed and suggested the conversation be taken offline so it could be discussed in more detail. Mr. Kitchen urged Council not to adopt Resolution 25-03, stating there were two errors in the presentation that overcalculated the rates to Lake Grove. He encouraged Council to retain the City's existing methodology and noted that adoption of the alternative proposal would result in an immediate 25 percent rate increase for the District's customers. The City was currently the District's most expensive supplier, and the proposed change would require the District to raise its rates accordingly. The District had been working to phase in increased costs gradually and avoid an immediate rate hike. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.1 Resolution 25-03, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing Adjustments to Water Rates for Wholesale Water Customers. 6.2 Resolution 25-17, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Updating the City's Financial Policies Sections 6 and 7 as Shown in Exhibits A and B. 6.3 Resolution 25-19, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Budget for the Biennium Commencing July 1, 2023, by Transferring Certain Appropriations. 6.4 Approval of Meeting Minutes. February 18, 2025, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes March 4, 2025, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes March 14, 2025, Draft Special Meeting Minutes March 18, 2025, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes END CONSENT Councilor Mboup moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Corrigan seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Wendland, Verdick, Corrigan, Afghan, Mboup voting `aye', (6-0). 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 April 15, 2025 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Resolution 25-07, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing the Budget Committee to Form a Standing Subcommittee (Municipal Grants Subcommittee). Ms. Thesing said the resolution would create a Municipal Grants Subcommittee, which would be authorized to oversee the City's grant programs and develop a funding allocation structure. Adoption of the Resolution would allow a group of four, consisting of two Councilors and two Budget Committee members, to begin meeting. The group would not be allocating funds at this time but would work through the end of the fiscal year to establish a new structure. The subcommittee would return in the new fiscal year with a formal recommendation. The Resolution was consistent with best practices by granting authority to the subcommittee through Council action. Councilor Verdick moved to adopt Resolution 25-07. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck, Councilors Wendland, Verdick, Corrigan, Afghan, and Mboup voting `aye', (6-0). 8.2 2025 Legislative Session Update. Ms. Thesing provided an update on the legislative session, noting while some bills had died in committee, many of the bills the City was tracking remained active. Updates on housing transportation and general City operations were outlined in the Council Report and summarized as follows: • In housing, the City had provided testimony on several of the Governor's bills, and many of the requested amendments had been included. The City continued to monitor shot clock timeline bills and any provisions that could limit its ability to require frontage improvements. A technical fix had been secured to allow transfer of City-awarded funds to Habitat for Humanity. • In transportation, the legislative framework had been shared with Council. It had not yet been assigned a bill number and served as a starting point for concepts that might be included. Nothing had been finalized through negotiations. Many elements reflected the City's advocacy efforts, including diversification of revenues. Ms. Thesing and the Assistant City Engineer participated in the initial meetings with the League of Oregon Cities, and those meetings would continue as the bill was narrowed through further discussion. • In City operations, several bills aligned with existing City efforts, including extension of a fire- related grant, provisions related to drone use by law enforcement, and rebate programs for leaf blowers. While many bills were unexpected, they supported the City's broader goals. The striking bill, Senate Bill 916, remained active and had advanced to the House. The City would continue to monitor its progress. 9. PUBLIC HEARING City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 April 15, 2025 9.1 Ordinance 2959, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and Updating Various Provisions (2024); and Adopting Findings (LU 24-0029). Attorney Osoinach reviewed the hearing procedures and asked if any Councilor wished to declare a financial conflict of interest. None were heard. Mr. Fransted presented the Staff report via PowerPoint, noting the purpose of the proposed Code amendments was to correct errors, eliminate text redundancy, clarify text, implement minor policy changes intended to streamline the permit, and implement City goals and priorities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • The City received one public comment from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, Exhibit G-1, which expressed concerns that the Planning Commission Staff report did not address the Statewide Planning Goal for Housing, Goal 10. The Commission found that Goal 10 was not applicable to the proposed code amendments because the amendments did not change allowed residential densities, uses, housing types, Comprehensive Plan Map or Zoning or zoning of any property and therefore did not affect Goal 10. • One of the seven policy items meant to address whether cottage cluster courtyards should be put into easements or tracts was removed from the Code updates after discussion with the Planning Commission, community developers, and other stakeholders because requiring a tract was found to be more restrictive and provided less flexibility. While there was concern that courtyards might not be treated as open space, the current Code allowed the City to enforce any encroachment and the Planning Commission, with Staff concurrence, chose to keep the existing approach. Mr. Fransted continued the presentation with a review of the six policy items included in the updates. He addressed questions that arose on the following issues as noted: • Item 2: Reconstruction of non-conforming commercial, industrial, and multifamily non- conforming structures. • The current Code did not allow for basic additions or alterations to a structure unless it was damaged by a natural disaster, meaning nonconforming commercial structures could not add an addition or remodel. The proposed change would allow for those additions and upgrades. The Code would now refer to buildings "damaged or destroyed by any means," which allowed for the property owner damaging or removing a portion of the structure as long as it did not exceed 50 percent. This would allow nonconforming sections to remain while upgrading the building, which was consistent with the City's original intent. • Item 3: Accessory structure setback reduction. • The proposed change would allow accessory structures up to 12 feet in height to qualify for reduced setbacks. Many accessory structures were prefabricated sheds commonly 12 feet tall. Under the current Code, if a structure exceeded 10 feet in height, it did not qualify for the five-foot side setback or three-foot rear setback and instead had to meet the full City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 April 15, 2025 setback required by the zone, which could range from 5 to 15 feet. The Code change would increase the allowed height. Height was measured from grade to the roof peak, either from the existing grade or, if the owner cut the grade, from the cut grade. • Item 6: Generators and variances. • The City received many variance requests from property owners who wished to locate generators closer to property lines. The requests were often from homes on the lake where houses were built to all setbacks and had no room left to place a generator. Under the current Code, such a request constituted a major variance with a public hearing even though the generator would be screened from the street and not impact surrounding properties. The proposed change would allow for a minor variance which was less restrictive but still required a permit and land use application. • Item 7: Definition of detached. During the previous year's Code amendments, Councilors discussed the definition of detached and asked that the definition be further refined in this year's amendments to reduce confusion. Staff sought the Council's feedback on two options for the definition presented as follows: • Option 1: Remove the definition of detached and add language to the accessory structure definition to require no structural connection to the primary structure, excluding breezeways, etc. • Mr. Fransted confirmed Option 1 would eliminate the definition of detached but still require a minimum, three-foot separation where needed to meet other standards, such as Fire Code or additional safety features. He responded to questions as follows: • Under the current Code, if there was no structural connection and the structure was considered detached, it could qualify for reduced rear yard setbacks and receive bonuses for maximum floor area and lot coverage. These dimensional standards differentiated between accessory structures, such as garages, and the primary structure. Whether that distinction remained necessary could be considered in the future. • The maximum size for a detached garage depended on height: 600 square feet if the height was 18 feet or less, and 800 square feet if over 18 feet. For attached structures, the garage floor area counted toward the maximum overall floor area for the lot. The total maximum floor area still applied to the entire lot, but accessory structures were subject to the 600 or 800 square foot limit. • Detached structures could qualify for different setbacks than attached ones. The bonus for maximum lot coverage was approximately 200 square feet; the floor area bonus was likely similar. These bonuses were intended to break up building massing by encouraging meaningful separation between structures, and to support the development of accessory structures. That community's intent to encourage accessory structures would remain in place. • The bonuses would remain in the Code, even without requiring the three-foot separation. If the distance between structures was less than three feet, firewalls would be required. Removing the three-foot minimum allowed greater flexibility for builders or property owners, especially on constrained sites. For example, it would City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 April 15, 2025 allow them to construct a covered walkway between eaves or to use the space more effectively, which the current Code prohibited by measuring the separation from eave to eave. • Eliminating the separation requirement allowed for greater site design flexibility without sacrificing safety, and it reflected a recognition that the three-foot space did not meaningfully separate massing. • Option 2 Clarify that "detached" applied to accessory structures and kept the three-foot standard in place. • When originally adopted, the existing three-foot separation standard was thought to provide meaningful separation, but Staff found that it did not. The Planning Commission also discussed revisiting this topic as part of a broader Code audit focused on identifying barriers to housing. A more in-depth analysis of the City's dimensional standards may be needed beyond just redefining "detached." • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could be considered accessory structures, depending on whether they were located within the primary dwelling. Most often, they were detached and therefore subject to the same 600- to 800-square-foot limitations as other accessory structures. That size constraint was often insufficient for the intended use, such as constructing an ADU above a garage. Because the garage floor area counted toward the total, many property owners ultimately attached the garage to the primary structure to avoid exceeding the maximum. ADUs were not eligible for the bonus provisions because they were limited to 800 square feet. Councilor Corrigan asked for more information regarding Code Maintenance Item 11 which clarified that Type II Tree Removal and Mitigation Standards were applicable to minor and major development permits, but tree protection standards were not. Mr. Fransted replied that the clarification arose from a Development Review Commission (DRC) tree appeal, which found that the current Code's reference to Tree Cutting Chapter 55 did not include tree protection standards. To codify that interpretation, the reference was revised to specifically cite the tree removal standards in Chapter 55.02, making it clear that tree protection did not apply. The crux of the change was that tree protection was not a development standard, though it still applied during construction. Councilor Corrigan sought to confirm tree protection standards still existed but not as a development standard. Director Numanoglu stated the Code now clarified that tree protection was not an applicable approval criterion for minor or major development permits. While tree protection could still be required as a condition of approval, it applied during the construction phase to any project requiring a permit, but it was not part of the land use review process. Mayor Buck asked for more information on how the wording of the ordinance was drafted in regard to Option 1 or 2 for Issue 7. Mr. Fransted replied that Staff found that either option met the Comprehensive Plan criteria. The Planning Commission's recommendation was Option 2. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 April 15, 2025 Public Testimony: • Carole Ockert, Land Use Liaison, First Addition Neighborhood(FAN)/Forest Hills, presented testimony via PowerPoint in support of requiring that cottage cluster courtyards be placed in a separate tract, citing concerns regarding homeowner understanding, violation of home rule, the cottage cluster middle housing type itself, and alleging a privileged relationship between City Staff and developers. She recommended setting a minimum footprint of 850 square feet for cottage clusters to limit the number of units per lot and mitigate related impacts. She supported Option 2 for Policy Item 7, stating it removed confusion surrounding the term "detached" while continuing to incentivize innovative building plans. • Chris Durkee, Palisades Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Chairs Committee, supported the position outlined by Ms. Ockert adding that allowing a developer to divide cottage cluster courtyards like a pie would create a sense of individual ownership, undermining the intended concept of a common courtyard. The City should establish that courtyards in a cottage cluster be owned in common as their own tract. Dividing the space would lead to unintended consequences related to maintenance, use, access, and other issues. • Stacy Houser, resident, First Addition shared concerns regarding construction debris and clear cutting related to the two FAN cottage cluster developments. The Council should work with the neighborhood, not builders, to identify solutions. The City should require a common courtyard held in a separate tract, establish a minimum footprint for cottages, and end the privileged relationship between Staff and builders. • Deborah Linke, resident, First Addition, asked City Council to enact the Code changes proposed by Carole Ockert that would improve cottage cluster development in Lake Oswego without waiting for State permission. The Council should require that cottage cluster courtyards be held in common ownership within a single tract, establish a minimum cottage footprint of 850 square feet, and adopt Option 2 from Policy Item 7. Mayor Buck acknowledged that getting into the Code could be challenging, noting it was difficult for the Council to respond meaningfully to amendments brought forward during a public hearing. Earlier outreach, such as an email or meeting request, would improve engagement. He added that while policy disagreements were understandable, denigrating City Staff was not appropriate and did not sit well with him. Staff responded to Councilor questions as noted: • The current Code had a maximum of 900 square feet for cottages in cottage clusters, which was consistent with State statute. • HB 2138, which was still under consideration, would remove that limitation and redefine cottage clusters, triplexes, and quadplexes to include both attached and detached units overriding the Council's 2024 decision requiring plexes to be attached. The same bill had previously included language to allow courtyards or amenities, though that provision appeared to be removed. The bill was still under consideration which was one reason Staff hesitated to recommended Code changes that may soon be preempted. • Minimum lot and home size requirements had traditionally been used as exclusionary zoning tools to limit development or restrict who could live in a neighborhood. HB 2138 included provisions prohibiting cities within an urban growth boundary from adopting regulations that City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 April 15, 2025 reduced residential density, including limits on units per acre, reductions in floor area or height, increases to minimum lot sizes or setbacks, or other restrictions on developable area. If Council wished to explore an 850-square-foot minimum, Staff could do so, but it could not be added and adopted that evening without proper notice. • Cottage clusters were currently required to include a common courtyard, which could be established either as an easement or a tract at the developer's discretion. In either case, the space was shared among the cottages through easement language. A tract could only be created for a cottage cluster through a middle housing land divisions and no middle housing land divisions for cottage clusters had yet been recorded or developed in the City, so the existing cottage cluster courtyards were located in easements. • Staff reiterated the City could not require a tract unless a middle housing land division was proposed. A land division would be recorded at the County as a plat. A tract could not be required unless they choose that option and developers so far had not been choosing that option. • The City did not require an HOA and Staff did not believe it could require one for either tracts or easements. Regardless of the designation, all property owners would be responsible for maintaining the common courtyard. Legally, the obligations for maintenance and governance were the same whether the space was a tract or an easement. From a Staff standpoint, enforcement would likely be easier with a tract because a tract provided clearer boundaries for property owners than an easement. Issues with easements had been more common in Planned Developments with larger lots, where sensitive lands or open space easements located in backyards were more prone to encroachments. However, on smaller cottage cluster sites, where shared spaces were more visible, enforcement would likely be easier although encroachments could occur in open space tracts as well, including within the City's own park system. • Mr. Fransted did not know why developers did not pursue middle housing land divisions. One cottage cluster had received approval, but the developer had not recorded or moved forward with it. The two developments in First Addition did not choose middle housing land division and were either planning to rent the units or condominimize them, which might be an easier process. Middle housing land division required a public process and a minor development application, which could be appealed and added additional steps. • Director Numanoglu clarified that an easement outlined terms such as access and maintenance requirements. Because the area was intended as a common courtyard, the easement needed to include provisions for access and maintenance. The legal setup in this specific case was unknown, but the arrangement would likely be similar to what is typically established for a tract. The easement needed to clearly identify the area as common space. • Attorney Osoinach stated that whether the space was designated as a tract or an easement, the effect was the same. A recorded easement could appear on a deed in several ways, but enforcement typically occurred through an agreement established by the developer. Prospective buyers would generally receive notice through mechanisms such as a homeowners' association, a recorded easement, or conditions of sale. Enforcement mechanisms would follow how the developer chose to place those requirements into the deed or sales documents. This structure provided more flexibility to the developer in managing the arrangement, rather than creating a direct right recorded on the deed for the purchaser. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 April 15, 2025 • While recording something on a deed could evidence a legal right in a different way, it did not necessarily improve a buyer's ability to enforce that right. In a situation where a property owner encroached on a common area, such as failing to maintain landscaping, there were multiple pathways to enforcement. If the concern was an innocent buyer unaware of their rights, recording the easement would ensure notice. • Director Numanoglu suggested an easement might be preferred by developers because it was easier to establish and avoided the additional steps required to create a separate tract during platting. The choice may also have related to development flexibility, particularly around setbacks and the need to construct a firewall when creating a property line, which would not be required with an easement. • Staff confirmed the cottage cluster units had a maximum footprint of 900 square feet. The units in the FAN neighborhood were designed to be different sizes but averaged no more than 1,000 square feet. Councilor Wendland advocated for courtyards being held in a common tract and was in favor of setting up an 850 square foot minimum for cottage cluster units. The minimum was not meant to be exclusionary, but to fit the lifestyle and precedent of Lake Oswego. He was in favor of Option 2 for Issue 7. Councilor Mboup thanked Staff for their work and expressed concern about the accusations that Staff treated developers in a privileged manner. Debate should be civilized and a lack of trust in government led to chaos. Councilor Verdick said she leaned towards the idea of putting cottage cluster courtyards into a tract to give better definition. She also did not think an 850 square foot minimum was exclusionary because it may result in more main level living styles that would provide a needed type of housing for those who were aging or had a disability. She was in favor Option 2 for Issue 7. Councilor Afghan was in favor of Option 2 for Issue 7. He agreed that the City should examine the possibility of a minimum square footage requirement for cottage cluster units to maximize quality of life for those who bought the units. Following his conversations with the Planning Department and City Attorney, he understood that the end result of an easement and a tract were the same but to avoid conflicts between neighbors, he leaned towards the strategy of requiring the courtyards be in tracts. Councilor Wendland confirmed that regardless of how ownership was structured, the outcome for developers would be a somewhat prescribed process. He noted developers were valuable to the City because they invested in Lake Oswego, but they would take full advantage of what the Code allowed. For that reason, the City needed to ensure that appropriate parameters were in place to preserve the character of the Lake Oswego community while supporting both developers and neighborhoods so they could succeed and function well together. Councilor Verdick thanked Staff for their work to clean up the Code with regard to historic landmarks. She assured those who offered public testimony that City Councilors and City Staff were in contact with State representatives and did try to work to further the City's goals at the State level. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 April 15, 2025 Mayor Buck moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2959 including Option #2 for Policy Item 7, and directed Staff to return on May 6, 2025, with a final version of the Ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 24-0029. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Wendland, Verdick, Corrigan, Afghan, Mboup voting `aye', (6-0). Council took a recess from 5:01 p.m. to 5:12 p.m. 10. STUDY SESSIONS 10.1 Annual Police Department Report and Update. Chief Burke briefly reviewed areas the Police Department had focused on over the past year as follows: • The Department's online reporting went live a couple of weeks ago. Although it included a code component, it had not been widely publicized. The Department wanted the community to understand that if someone called for a police officer, a police officer would respond. Online reporting was introduced to provide convenience for those wishing to make a report. The system was already being used, and the City would continue sharing information about how to access it to make the process easier for residents. • A drone program had been instituted, and Staff expressed pride in the work accomplished. The drone had already been used, including during a recent search and rescue effort on the river. • The Department had entered into an agreement with TriMet to focus on providing resources to the Transit Police. Staff were still determining how best to allocate those resources given ongoing staffing challenges. • A position in the behavioral health unit with the help of a grant. A conditional job offer had been made, and the hiring process was moving forward. • The Department's organization was now in four divisions managed by three lieutenants, and communications operations were managed within LOCOM. • There were currently a few vacancies in the department, but candidates were in the hiring pipeline. Because training took approximately one year, new hires did not count toward staffing until they were fully trained and able to operate independently. Retention continued to present a challenge, and the department was exploring ways to encourage employees to remain with the City while also creating opportunities for officers to gain experience. One promotion was planned, and due to retention challenges, the department had initiated external recruitment for detective positions, which was not common practice. Captain Simon presented the Council Report via PowerPoint and provided information on the number of dispatch calls, police incidents, calls for service and traffic violations. The presentation City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 April 15, 2025 reviewed the 2024 Lake Oswego Statistical Transparency of Policing (STOP) Report, a required annual report to the State that collected certain demographic data for discretionary stops; provided in-depth information about how and when the Lake Oswego Police Department had used force over the past year. In 2023, the Department had modified its data collection to examine the difference between display of force and actual force that was used or pointed at someone. Chief Burke commented that Lake Oswego's Police Department tended to overreport its use of force because it separated out display as well as the actual application. Moving forward, displays of force would be identified as opportunities for de-escalation. When a weapon was displayed but not used, the Department viewed that as a successful outcome and intended to document those instances as they occurred. Captain Simon resumed the presentation, reviewing new data that reviewed the circumstances of incidents that required the display of force, the number and type of complaints received in 2024, and use of the Department's behavior Health Specialist. Chief Burke concluded the presentation with a review of overdose statistics. Though the reduction in non-fatal overdoses could be due to the naloxone programs, he was concerned that there were reduced reporting of overdoses due to the presence of naloxone in homes and the City which the City may not receive calls for service for. Mayor Buck asked how the City ensured the productivity of officers on patrol. Chief Burke responded there were many ways to measure officer productivity and the officer's daily work was fairly autonomous, though supervisors did meet with them regularly. The Department reviewed data such as calls for service, self-initiated activity, traffic stops, citations issued, reports written, and how long officers remained in specific locations. There were also important intangibles, such as community contacts that built trust but did not always appear as measurable activity. The Department aimed to shift the focus from simply driving through neighborhoods to driving in neighborhoods and opportunities to make community contact that built trust. Councilors Mboup and Afghan thanked the Police Department for their work. 10.2 "20 is Plenty" Speed Signing Overview and Implementation. Mr. Farley reviewed the Council Report via PowerPoint, reviewing the program's background and legal framework for speed limits, known effects of a 20 miles per hour speed limit, local data, and implementation measures and costs. The City's Transportation Advisory Board had suggested that the City consider marking residential arterials and neighborhood collectors with the lower limit, but the Board was undecided if the program would be worth the cost since it was difficult to measure success. The Council was asked for feedback on whether to sign both residential arterials and neighborhood collectors at the lower limit. Staff responded to questions from Councilors as follows: • A serious injury was defined as one requiring an ambulance and involving broken bones or incapacitation. A minor injury, while it might also result in an ambulance being called, did not involve incapacitation or loss of consciousness and was not expected to result in long-term health effects. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 April 15, 2025 • Goodall was a neighborhood collector whose speed limit was 25. • The functional classification of those roadways had been established some time ago. Some had 11-foot travel lanes, resulting in a total roadway width of 22 feet. The typical design standard for a neighborhood collector included 12-foot travel lanes. In some cases, a bike lane could be incorporated, along with sidewalks and green space. The ultimate design goal was to provide approximately 60 feet of right-of-way. • City Manager Bennett clarified that the $145,000 needed to fund the program would come from the Street Fund. The street fund was limited and the City had millions of dollars in unfunded capital projects. It was ultimately a matter of Council priorities. • Captain Simon stated that the Department would approach enforcement as it did with other issues. Officers would be directed to be proactive where possible, consistent with the Department's current messaging. The same guidance would be given to the traffic unit, which typically responded to complaints. Where possible, officers would focus on educating the public and when education was not effective, enforcement would follow. Tools like the speed trailer would be used to gather data and share information with the community. In most enforcement contacts, the individuals involved lived in the area, making education especially important. Councilor Wendland said the TAB was hesitant to share an opinion because it did not know if it had the money to implement the program and some members did not think there would be a change in behavior based on the statistics presented. Mr. Farley agreed the data showed mixed results and the greatest benefit was shown in bringing down the speed of people driving more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. Councilors noted that roadway classifications based on traffic volume did not always reflect actual conditions or user experience. They agreed that reducing speed was important, especially for children and other pedestrians. They supported an education-based approach and believed the investment was worthwhile, as the City could not build pathways everywhere, but lowering speeds would help make streets safer and more accessible. Councilors expressed support for signing residential arterials and neighborhood collectors. Mayor Buck inquired about whether Oregon had a move over law since drivers on some roads, such as Iron Mountain, did not move for pedestrians. City Manager Bennett replied that there was a separated facility on Iron Mountain, so the driver did not have to move over but drivers did have to give three feet when passing a bicyclist or pedestrian. Mayor Buck asked if the blue "Neighborhood Traffic Only" signs would be converted. City Manager Bennett said that as the signs need to be replaced, the City should not replace them, but there needed to be discussion with the neighborhoods before action was taken. The signs were not very welcoming and had no regulatory force, while the 20 mph would have regulatory force. The City should focus on places where it could help people to be good neighbors and produce tangible results. The neighborhood traffic signs were meant to prevent drivers from cutting through neighborhoods, and the lower speed would accomplish the same since those who did cut through neighborhoods would find it inconvenient. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 April 15, 2025 Director Rooney clarified that about 450 new signs, and she did not think she could guarantee those would be in place by the start of the school year because it would involve a lot of manpower and Staff effort. Staff needed to come up with a timeline that included education and outreach. City Manager Bennett added that perhaps the City could post the signs by neighborhood and general area, but Staff would need to discuss priority area and a communication plan. Director Rooney said the Staff would come up with a strategy and bring that back when the Ordinance was brought before Council in May. 11. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Verdick recognized the Library Advisory Board and noted that the youth members had been conducting a survey to gather feedback from high school and junior high students about their library and their needs. The survey had already received 350 to 400 responses. 12. REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Manager Bennett said that this afternoon the City had issued some park rules for the steps which had been emailed to Councilors and would go to the media later today. She reviewed the new rules, noting that some definitions had been added and the existing rule that used to apply to Sundeleaf to only apply to Sundeleaf and Headley. The rules would be posted on the website that night, followed by outreach to Lake Corporation, the State of Oregon, and other parties. The City would sign the park, and the signs should be up by the end of the week. Questions from Councilors regarding new rules and park closures were addressed by Staff as follows: • Director Anderholm clarified that the City brought in portable A-frames to cite that the areas were closed and reference the resolution or rule that allowed the City to do so, including the purpose and time. The ranger program and partners in the police department made everyone aware that the areas were closed for that purpose and for that time period. • City Manager Bennett said those who were going to swim were expected to have a swim buoy. The City was directing people back to the Marine Board to determine what kind of registration or permit they needed for boats or watercraft. • Director Anderholm said the signs would be larger than the temporary Marine Board sign. Now that the rules were adopted, the City would post a temporary sign with bullet points listing the rules for entering the park. The Department was ordering permanent signs and would adjust the text on the existing Marine Board sign so it would be consistent with other park rule signs. • City Manager Bennett said most of the feedback focused on the behavior of people fishing on the lake, which was more concerning than activity at the launch point. The City was working with the Marine Board, Fish and Wildlife, the Sheriff's Office, and Lake Corporation to address behavior on the lake, some of which could be regulated and some of which could not. The most common complaint was people fishing very close to, or underneath, someone's house. • City Manager Bennett said that if someone observed a trolling motor on the lake, they should call the non-emergency number. The City would send someone to Millennium Plaza Park to speak with the operator once they came out of the water, since they could not be approached City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 April 15, 2025 while on the lake. The City had not yet conducted outreach to people who were fishing but could ask them about the equipment they were using and why. During the trial, the conversation was about stand-up paddleboarding, swimming, and kayaking, not fishing. • Director Anderholm said that when discussing motorized equipment, the Marine Board did not define a trolling motor as a motor. Their definition referred specifically to an internal combustion motor. From a parks rule perspective, the issue was that about 28 feet from the top of the stairs, there was an interactive fountain that children were encouraged to use, and from a safety standpoint, the City did not want to allow the introduction of a motorized blade in that area, regardless of type. Trolling motors were designed for easy removal but easily removable and could be stored in a vehicle. • City Manager Bennett said that the City could not address concerns about motors and invasive species, but it could address motors in terms of access to the lake from the steps. • Attorney Osoinach said the definition of motorboat was taken directly from state law and included trolling motors, regardless of whether they were intact or operational. The City framed the issue as a motorboat being a boat plus a motor. The regulations were consistent with state law, which prohibited anyone from taking a boat and a trolling motor through the City's access point. Many members of the public were likely unaware of this so the City would focus on education. The City had not expanded on state law. A motorboat included a trolling motor when it was with a boat. State regulations were most concerned with motorized boats because motors could retain liquid and potentially convey invasive aquatic species. • City Manager Bennett said that allowable watercraft on the lake included kayaks, stand-up paddleboards, canoes, and Coast Guard-approved inflatables. All watercraft had to be 18 feet or less, require state permits, and be propelled only with an oar. The goal was to be objectively reasonable. Staff were working on an operational plan, which would include staffing and other components, and an informational campaign would also be needed, but this step needed to happen first under the resolution. When staff reports back in September, there would be an opportunity to share what worked over the summer. 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council meeting at 6:40 p.m. (________ Respectfully s bmi ted, Kim Ono Vermillion, Interim City Recorder Approved b the City Council on July 1, 2025. Joseph . Buck, Mayor Co ncil Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 Apri 5, 2025