HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2025-11-04 - Number 06.1 - Approval of Meeting Minutes 6.1
COUNCIL REPORT
V -w 0
OREGO�
Subject: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: November 4, 2025 Staff Member: Laural Hawkins, City Recorder
Report Date: October 24, 2025 Department: City Manager's Office
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation
❑X Motion ❑ Approval
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial
❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded
❑ Resolution , ❑X Not Applicable
❑ Information Only Comments:
❑ Council Direction
❑X Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as written.
Recommended Language for Motion: Move to approve minutes as written.
Project/ Issue Relates To: NA
Issue before Council (Highlight Policy Question):
❑Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑X Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
1. September 2, 2025 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
2. September 16, 2025 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Respect Trust. S.e'vi-
503-635-0215 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
O �tL CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
�` n MINUTES
° -- O
September 2, 2025 ATTACHMENT 1
c'REGO�
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. on Tuesday, September 2,
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 Afghan, Corrigan, Mboup, Rapf, Verdick, Wendland
Staff Present: City Manager Martha Bennett, City Attorney Ellen Osoinach, Interim City Recorder
Kim Ono, Long Range Planning Manager Erik Olson, Assistant Fire Chief Kris Artman,
Battalion Fire Chief Greg Barnum
Others Present: Sachi Arakawa, Cascadia Partners; Morgan Nolen, Contract Arborist for the City of
Lake Oswego; Emily Murkland, Community Planning Coordinator, Clackamas
County; Jamie Poole, Deputy Disaster Manager, Clackamas County
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PROCLAMATIONS
4.1 National Preparedness Month
Mayor Buck proclaimed that September was National Preparedness Month in Lake Oswego.The City
was hosting an Emergency Preparedness Fair at City Hall on Thursday, September 18 from 5:30 p.m.to
7:30 p.m.The signed proclamation would be available on the City's website.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Edward Conrad,testified that his own review of Lake Oswego's sidewalk and bike lane facilities
showed most were inadequate for safe e-bike and e-scooter use. He encouraged the City to address
these deficiencies and plan for safer pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
• Chris Durkee, Chair, Palisades Neighborhood Association,testified in support of reducing local
speed limits to 20 miles per hour.The Association's board had voted unanimously to back the City's
plan and suggested that streets without sidewalks be prioritized.
• Mike Perm thanked the Council for the Go Slow campaign and said lowering speed limits was a good
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8
September 2, 2025
first step toward safer neighborhood streets. The Council and Planning Department were
encouraged to continue reducing car dependency and explore ways to make local streets safer,
more active, and more people centered.
• Kate Lupton, shared a close call with her child near Pilkington Road earlier that day and expressed
gratitude for the City's pedestrian safety efforts. Lowering the speed limit by five miles per hour
would make a meaningful difference for children's safety.
• Ginny Adelsine, urged the City to install a four-way stop at the Cornell/Hemlock St intersection,
citing daily safety risks to children, pedestrians, and cyclists. She described frequent near misses,
including a recent accident involving a young boy, and said drivers on Cornell had no reason to slow
down despite heavy pedestrian use.The City should act before a serious accident occurred.
• Sarah lannarone, Executive Director,The Street Trust, urged support for Ordinance 2966 regarding
the citywide "20 is Plenty" speed reduction. Lower speed limits would make streets safer, reduce
crashes, support local spending, and strengthen economic resilience by helping families save on
transportation costs. A December 2023 technical advisory memo outlining these benefits had been
submitted to the City.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6.1 Resolution 25-31,Appointing Members to the Foothills District Community Advisory
Committee
6.2 Ordinance 29-58,Annexing 5450 Kenny St. (AN 25-0001)
6.3 Ordinance 2961,Annexing 6210 Lakeview Blvd. (AN 25-0002)
6.4 Resolution 25-38,Approving Amendment No. 4 to Subrecipient Agreement 24-006 Between
the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County Human Services Department's Social Services
Division for Fiscal Years 2023—2027
6.5 Ordinance 2966, Directing the City Engineer to Reduce Statutory Speed Limits by 5 MPH on
Residential Streets Under the City's Jurisdiction
Mayor Buck noted Item 6.5 had been removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Councilor
Rapf.
Councilor Rapf moved to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. Councilor Mboup seconded the
motion.A voice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan,
Corrigan, Mboup, Rapf,Verdick, and Wendland voting 'aye', (7-0).
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
7.1 Ordinance 2966, Directing the City Engineer to Reduce Statutory Speed Limits by 5 MPH on
Residential Streets Under the City's Jurisdiction
Mayor Buck explained at its last meeting, Council had a discussion and public hearing on Ordinance
2966, but Councilor Rapf and Councilor Mboup were not present.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8
September 2, 2025
Councilor Rapf said he had received many emails both supporting and opposing the "20 is Plenty"
initiative. While he understood the appeal of lower speed limits, especially as a parent, he had asked for
the item to be removed to allow for more discussion. He asked whether it was the right time to move
forward given the City's limited budget and the estimated $200,000 cost.
Councilor Mboup noted that data clearly supported reducing speeds to 20 miles per hour, which was
the common standard in other parts of the world.The $200,000 cost was minimal compared to the
value of public safety.
Councilor Afghan supported the reduction, citing strong national and local data showing slower speeds
saved lives. Lake Oswego's lack of sidewalks and narrow streets made lower limits especially important
for pedestrians and cyclists.
Councilor Afghan moved to enact Ordinance 2966. Councilor Verdick seconded the motion.
Councilor Wendland stated he did not support the ordinance, citing concerns about process,
enforcement, and effectiveness.The City had not followed its usual level of public outreach for a major
policy change, and lowering speed limits without a plan or resources for enforcement could give
residents a false sense of security. Local data showed few accidents on neighborhood streets,with most
occurring at major intersections. He preferred targeted measures such as speed bumps or stop signs
over blanket speed reductions and questioned the impact, noting Portland's post-implementation study
found only a one-mile-per-hour decrease in average speeds.
Councilor Verdick supported the ordinance, noting that while enforcement might not increase, it would
not decrease either. She viewed 20 is Plenty as one tool to improve pedestrian safety and encourage
walking and biking. Speed bumps were not a lasting solution, and traffic studies failed to measure how
safe pedestrians felt. More signage would remind drivers to slow down, and acting now would avoid
higher costs later.
Councilor Corrigan believed financial objections were not compelling, noting that pathways and
personnel costs far exceeded the$200,000 needed for the speed reduction program.There was
potential for improved safety and quality of life if residents felt more comfortable walking. In that sense,
the investment was a bargain for a citywide benefit.
Mayor Buck stated that no other initiative could have such a broad impact for the same cost.The 25
mph limits were based on outdated standards prioritizing vehicle flow rather than safety.The 20 mph
standard reflected modern data on survivability and safety, and even small reductions in speed could
significantly affect outcomes in crashes. The increased signage would serve as a visible reminder that
local streets were shared spaces where pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers must coexist safely.
A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan,Corrigan,
Mboup,and Verdick voting`aye';Councilors Rapf and Wendland voting'no' (5-2).
8. STUDY SESSION
8.1 Wildfire Response and Disaster Preparedness
Emily Murkland presented via PowerPoint an overview of the County's multi-year evacuation planning
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8
September 2, 2025
project, outlining its three phases. Phase I involved developing GIS-based evacuation maps that
identified 21 zones countywide, using flood, wildfire, and landslide data to assess risks and potential
impacts to roadways. Phase II refined those maps through collaboration with fire districts, local staff,
and community partners to ensure the routes were practical in real-world conditions. Phase III focused
on community engagement through the "Be ClackGO Prepared" campaign,which encouraged residents
to sign up for public alerts, review evacuation route maps now available online, and build personal
preparedness kits.The campaign received strong engagement and would be repeated annually ahead of
fire season with future updates guided by community feedback and survey data.
Questions and comments from Council were addressed as follows:
• The ClackGO program focused on helping residents prepare to leave during an evacuation by
identifying what to take and how to exit safely.The evacuation maps were created to help residents
understand the ways in and out of their neighborhoods and would also be shared with short-term
rentals so visitors unfamiliar with the area could access the same information.
• While the maps would not change how the City managed streets day to day,they could help guide
traffic management during emergencies, such as determining whether both sides of a road could be
used for evacuation.The Lake Oswego Fire Department had been instrumental in reviewing and
refining the maps.
• Lessons from the 2020 wildfires informed the current approach, which allowed Level 3 "Go Now"
areas to evacuate first before expanding alerts. Because each type of disaster—flooding, wildfire, or
severe storms—required different responses, evacuation plans were designed to remain flexible to
ensure safe and efficient movement throughout the community.
Fire Chief Barnum reviewed the City's wildfire preparedness, covering escalating response steps from
local firefighting efforts to regional mutual aid, state conflagration declarations, and interstate
assistance through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.The presentation briefly reviewed
how wildfires spread, noting that most homes burn from windblown embers rather than advancing
flames and stressed the importance of home mitigation, especially within five feet of the structure.
Residents were encouraged to request free home assessments, participate in the Firewise Program, and
use the Watch Duty app and Emergency Alert System to stay informed. Everyone was urged to take at
least one action to make their home and community more fire resilient.
Councilor questions were addressed by Staff and County officials as follows:
• Wildfires often start in vegetation but typically spread through windblown embers rather than trees.
Properly trimming trees and keeping fires on the ground reduces risk, and preventing structure
ignition limits ember spread.
• Evacuation communication relies on Flash Alerts, social media, wireless emergency alerts, the
Emergency Alert System, and public websites.The Lake Oswego dispatch center works with the
County to send coordinated alerts and provide real-time updates about routes, shelters, and
resources.
• Firewise standards recommend keeping vegetation at least 10 feet from roofs and gutters and
maintaining defensible space between trees and other fuels.These guidelines will inform updates to
the City's Tree Code.
• To prevent traffic bottlenecks, evacuation notifications will be phased by zone rather than citywide.
The City has practiced evacuation plans with experts and prepared for complex situations, including
livestock relocation and blocked routes.
• The Community Health and Resiliency Advisory Board would work with neighborhood associations
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8
September 2, 2025
to promote emergency preparedness and household-level readiness.
8.2 Housing Production Strategy Implementation Policy
Long Range Planning Manager Erik Olson presented the Council report via PowerPoint, providing an
update on the implementation of the City's Housing Production Strategy (HPS), adopted in November
2024,to address future housing needs identified in the Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and to meet State
requirements under House Bill 2003 and Statewide Planning Goal 10.The HPS was approved by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in April 2025 with conditions requiring
annual progress summaries and a midpoint report after three years. Staff was looking for Council
direction on the initial work plan for implementing the near-term HPS priorities.As part of an eight-year
implementation cycle, only a limited number of strategies could be initiated at once. The presentation
covered strategies as follows:
• Code Audit and Amendments:The City would utilize a Metro 2040 Planning and Development Grant
to begin a comprehensive review of the Development Code in early 2026.The project would identify
and remove barriers to housing and business development while aligning with new State legislation,
including HB 2138. Coordination between State regulatory updates and local code revisions would
be critical, and Staff intended to ensure that housing and economic development objectives were
advanced together.
• Minimum Parking Requirements:This strategy had already been completed in December 2024
through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code,which
removed minimum parking requirements citywide to comply with Climate Friendly and Equitable
Communities (CFEC) rules.
• Rezone Land:The City would utilize a DLCD Planning Assistance Grant to review non residentially
zoned properties and identify opportunities to enable multifamily housing.A DLCD-appointed
consultant would assist in this two-phase project, with a memorandum of recommendations
expected by the end of 2026 and formal code amendments anticipated by 2027-2028.
Staff address key questions from Councilors as noted:
• If DLCD-selected consultants were used, the City would still define the project scope and grant
approvals would continue to come before Council. Many elements of the work would still move
through normal City processes.
• The HPS had always been conceived as a two-phase effort addressing both residential and
nonresidential rezoning.The current focus was on nonresidential areas,with residential rezoning
deprioritized due to its complexity and limited necessity given recent State legislation.
• The residential phase was not part of the current grant. DLCD's HB 2138 and the City's Middle
Housing Code already unlocked additional capacity in existing residential zones.The intent was to
advance nonresidential zoning work first and assess progress before revisiting residential capacity.
• Council's adopted HPS remained in place.There was no mechanism to undo it immediately, but at
the three-year midpoint Council could evaluate whether housing capacity goals had been met
through non-residential zoning and determine whether further work was needed.
• HB 2138 would already introduce changes affecting density and local impacts. It was reasonable to
expect most new housing capacity to come from nonresidential areas.
• Rezoning residential property could mean changing lot sizes, for example from R-7.5 to R-2, allowing
subdivision of existing lots. Such changes could significantly affect property owners and cause
concern among residents.
• No residential rezoning was being proposed.The intent was to retain local control while fulfilling
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8
September 2, 2025
State housing goals and managing the process proactively rather than reacting to DLCD direction.
• Council was invited to share any concerns about the DLCD consultant roster. DLCD's intent was to
streamline the grant and contracting process so cities could respond more quickly to State housing
mandates.
• The DLCD Grants were paid for out of the State's General Fund.There were many cities asking for as
much grant funds as possible.
Olson continued with a review of the Foothills District Plan update.The City was taking a comprehensive
look at the area to develop a set of recommendations and a new plan reflecting current community
values.The project included a rezoning component consistent with the Rezone Land strategy, though
the extent to which additional residential capacity might be unlocked in the area was yet to be
determined.The presentation reviewed steps underway and noted that the Foothills District work
related to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) strategy and fit within the broader HPS framework.The
project timeline aligned with the three-year midpoint of the HPS, when the City aimed to quantify added
housing capacity through a defined methodology for the required report submission.
Questions from Councilors were addressed as follows:
• The red line on the Foothills map represented an early concept of the study area boundary.The
boundary was not yet finalized, and the intent was to maintain flexibility.The study area would
likely extend slightly beyond the red line shown, and further discussion with the project
management team and public input would help determine the final limits.
• The urban renewal boundary might differ from the Foothills study area boundary. When the City
withdrew the urban renewal boundary, it could be adjusted to capture some of the assessed value
on the opposite side of the highway.
• The project was expected to span approximately two years.The appointed advisory group had been
carefully selected to reflect diverse perspectives, and the public involvement strategy provided an
initial framework for how the community would be engaged in the process.
Olson continued with a presentation reviewing HPS Strategy 7,which proposed modifying the SDC fee
schedule to more directly align fees with dwelling size.The larger fee structure revision was scheduled
to begin in 2027, consistent with the HPS timeline.
Staff addressed key questions from Councilors as follows:
• The City had committed to revisiting the fee schedule for cottage clusters,which would begin this
year with recommendations expected for inclusion in next year's Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
The item would return to Council later in the year.
• Cottage clusters did not currently fit well within existing SDC categories.The City was charging the
single-family rate, which was higher than the multifamily rate. Staff were developing a methodology
to establish a rate between the two, working with Engineering to determine an appropriate
calculation.
• The new methodology would be incorporated into the fee schedule once complete.A broader
review of the overall SDC structure would follow later as part of the Transportation System Plan
Update.
Olson presented a review of HPS Strategy 8,which established a nonprofit low-income housing tax
exemption for regulated affordable housing available to households at or below 60 percent of area
median income (AMI).The City adopted the program last year to make it available for the Mercy
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8
September 2, 2025
Greenbrae development at Marylhurst Commons.The El Nido development at the Boones Ferry Road
staging site was also seeking to utilize the exemption this year.
Staff addressed key questions from Councilors as follows:
• The exemption applied specifically to nonprofit developers and to projects serving residents at or
below 60 percent of AMI.While the City could tailor the program below that threshold, it was not
available above 60 percent AMI.
• Council could consider establishing local criteria in addition to meeting the State's requirements, but
any criteria would need to align with the structure and limitations of the existing tax exemption
program.
• Staff were also preparing to implement a low-income rental housing tax exemption that would be
available to both nonprofit and for-profit developers building housing for households earning 60
percent of AMI or less.That work was scheduled to begin this year and could extend into early 2026.
Options and recommendations would be presented to Council in the near future.
Olson continued, presenting a review of HPS Strategy 10,which called for pursuing public-private
partnerships for affordable housing.The strategy was written broadly to allow flexibility and depended
on cooperation with private-sector partners. By the midpoint report, DLCD required the City to
demonstrate at least one tangible action from a list of four recommendations: donation of surplus City-
owned land for affordable housing; partnerships with faith-based organizations to utilize excess or
underused land for affordable housing; leveraging federal, state, and regional resources, such as the
Metro Affordable Housing Bond; using TIF funds to support affordable housing partnerships. Acceptable
forms of progress could include a memorandum of understanding, a Council resolution or directive, or
an allocation of funding.
Staff addressed key questions from Councilors as follows:
• Previous actions could not be counted toward HPS compliance.While the City had completed
several related efforts before the HPS was adopted, DLCD required new activity during the reporting
period.
• Establishing a new TIF district within the Foothills area was identified as a practical and feasible
method to comply with the DLCD condition and would align with other City priorities.
• Even a nonresidential zoning update would likely satisfy the condition, and the City was already on
track to meet the intent of this strategy.
• There were no penalties if the City failed to act; the requirement functioned primarily as a
statement of intent. Council direction would be sufficient to demonstrate progress.
Olson reviewed the HPS strategy to Use TIF to Support Affordable Housing Development.The City
intended to include affordable housing as an eligible project within the forthcoming Foothills Urban
Renewal Plan. While the focus would be Foothills,TIF could also be used elsewhere in the city, and such
actions could be credited toward State housing goals.
Staff addressed key questions from Councilors as follows:
• Councilors discussed the extent to which Foothills planning should account for affordable housing.
The committee tasked with envisioning the area would not be required to include affordable
housing but could explore it as part of the broader planning process.
• TIF could be used flexibly, including for infrastructure that supported mixed-income housing or as an
incentive to encourage development of affordable units.The strategy did not require a specific
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8
September 2, 2025
dollar commitment but ensured that affordable housing was considered among eligible TIF projects.
Olson continued with a review of the HPS strategy addressing Fair Housing Policy and Education.The
strategy directed the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan to make affirmatively furthering fair
housing an official City policy and to expand public education on fair housing rights.The City had begun
work in this area and planned to complete adoption of the new policy by the end of the year. A public
hearing before the Planning Commission was scheduled for the following Monday, with a Council
hearing set for November 4. If approved,the amendment would be completed before year-end. DLCD
advised postponing the analysis of impediments to fair housing until the next HNA cycle, but educational
initiatives could begin sooner. He concluded the presentation by reviewing next steps for
implementation of the remaining HPS strategies.
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Councilor Wendland reminded Councilors that the October Wine Walk was approaching.Tickets were
available through the Chamber.
Councilor Verdick thanked the City Staff for their work in coordinating a successful National Night Out.
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
Martha Bennett recognized the Parks and Recreation Department for the successful 2025 concert
season and the record attendance at the Teen Lounge that summer. She reported that the City received
a grant to extend the Saturday Farmer's Market for three weeks.
11. ADJOURNMENT,CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Laural Hawkins, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on November 4, 2025.
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8
September 2, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
� E Fo
JtL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
n MINUTES
September 16, 2025
OREGO�
1. CALL TO ORDER,CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. on Tuesday, September 16,
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 Afghan (via Zoom), Corrigan, Mboup, Rapf,Verdick,
Wendland
Staff Present: City Manager Martha Bennett, City Attorney Ellen Osoinach, Interim City Recorder
Kim Ono, City Recorder Laura! Hawkins, Deputy City Manager Madison Thesing,
Management Analyst Nell Diamond, Director of Special Projects Stefan Broadus,
Community Development Director Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager Johanna
Hastay, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erica Rooney, Sustainability Program
Manager Amanda Watson
Others Present: Nancy Werner, outside counsel from Bradley Werner, LLC; Eric Cress, UDP; Bob
Naito, Naito Development
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Catherine McMullen,Clackamas County Clerk, recognized National Voter Registration Day,which
celebrated every eligible citizen's right to vote easily and securely. She encouraged residents to
confirm their voter registration, sign up for ballot tracking through Clackamas County, and plan to
vote in upcoming elections. More information about eligibility requirements was available through
Clackamas.us/elections and OregonVotes.gov.
• Carole Ockert, Land Use Liaison, First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills(FANFH) Neighborhood
Association, spoke regarding Item 13.1,the LORA/North Anchor Fifth Addendum to the Disposition
and Development Agreement. She noted the neighborhood's long involvement with multiple North
Anchor proposals and expressed appreciation for the collaboration among Staff,the developer, and
the neighborhood. Ms. Ockert observed that the agreement's provision for City-held funds would
generate interest benefiting the Downtown Urban Renewal District, estimated between $70,000
and $100,000. FANFH remained committed to supporting a good outcome for the City.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18
September 16, 2025
• Young Palmer shared information about a new technology described as a form of phototherapy
involving wearable patches. He offered to provide a sample for a volunteer to try.
5. PROCLAMATIONS
5.1 Hispanic Heritage Month
Mayor Buck declared September 15 through October 15 as Hispanic Heritage Month in Lake Oswego.
The signed proclamation was available on the City's website.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6.1 Resolution 25-39,Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Municipal Judge Employment
Agreement
6.2 Resolution 25-40,Authorizing the City Manager to Sign the Franchise Agreement Extension
between the City of Lake Oswego and Comcast Oregon
Councilor Rapf moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Mboup seconded the motion.A voice
vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan, Corrigan, Mboup,
Rapf,Verdick, and Wendland voting'aye', (7-0).
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
8.1 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Work Order 378)
Director of Special Projects Stefan Broadus presented the Pavement Management Program update via
PowerPoint, reviewing the program's history and summarizing accomplishments from 2018 through
2022, during which the City's Pavement Condition Index (PCI) improved from 68 to 75.The presentation
also reviewed reduced funding levels in recent years, cost-effective maintenance strategies, and
preliminary results from the latest pavement condition assessment.The current PCI was 70, an expected
decline from 2022's high given lower pavement investment levels. The 2026-2030 program would
coordinate with utility projects, continue assessment cycles, and focus on arterial and collector streets.
Staff sought Council authorization to proceed with the design phase and to amend the professional
services contract by$650,000, bringing the total to approximately$1 million.
Staff addressed key questions from Councilors as noted:
• The total cost of projects completed between 2023 and 2025 was just under$3 million, with
approximately$1.5-1.75 million spent in 2025 and smaller amounts in the prior two years. Some
projects were partial width paving to address localized failures, such as the north lane of B Avenue,
which provided a cost-effective repair.
• About 20 to 30 percent of program costs from 2018-2022 were for ADA curb ramps, 5 to 10 percent
for stormwater structures, and the remainder for paving. In recent years,fewer curb ramps were
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18
September 16, 2025
triggered because work often involved patching or roads without sidewalks, lowering those costs.
• Stormwater improvements were paid from the Stormwater Fund.The $3 million referenced
included work associated with catch basins funded through that source.
• Approximately$3 million per year was transferred from the General Fund into the Street Fund to
support paving and other capital projects, such as Lakeview Boulevard.
• The $650,000 contract amendment requested was for engineering and design work supporting the
next construction cycle. It was part of a multi-year, $24 million effort projected over the next four
years.
• The $24 million investment was expected to improve the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) from the
current 70 to approximately 73-75, depending on final project selection and additional paving from
development-related improvements.
• Repairs to Blue Heron Road were funded and on the Capital Improvement Project list but not part of
the Pavement Rehabilitation Project.
• Arterial and collector streets scored a few points higher than the overall Pavement Condition Index
of 70,while local streets were a few points lower.The program would continue prioritizing arterials
and collectors but reserve a portion of funding for local roads to ensure those areas also received
attention over time.
• The program budget was$24 million as shown in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)with flexibility
built in.The first two years were fully budgeted, while the remaining four years were shown as
funded but not yet budgeted and would be revisited with the next CIP update.The $650,000
contract amendment before Council represented the design phase for the next construction season
and was part of the larger$24 million program. Some improvements would also draw from the
Stormwater Fund for catch basin retrofits and from a separate ADA curb ramp line item of
approximately$750,000 per year.The total program amount could therefore vary depending on
scope and funding sources. Staff planned to return twice each year, once for the design contract
amendment and again in the spring to approve the construction contract for the following summer's
paving work.
Councilor Rapf stated that maintaining the City's streets was one of the most important responsibilities
of local government and that well-paved roads directly improved livability. While the City had invested
$3 million in paving projects between 2023 and 2025, people might not realize how much work and cost
were involved in maintaining road infrastructure. Mayor Buck noted that paving was one of the largest
discretionary investments the City made, and significant General Fund resources were directed to the
Street Fund to maintain pavement conditions.While the community also prioritized pedestrian
improvements, there remained a strong public desire for well-maintained roads. Councilor Rapf
commented that residents often did not understand the "dig once" policy and that paving required
coordinated planning rather than simply replacing asphalt.
Councilor Wendland moved to authorize the City Manager to amend the Professional Services
Contract with Consor North America, Inc. (Consor) in the amount of$650,369 for professional
engineering services for the 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation Project(Work Order 378). Councilor
Verdick seconded the motion.A voice vote was held,and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18
September 16, 2025
Councilors Afghan,Corrigan, Mboup, Rapf,Verdick, and Wendland voting'aye',(7-0).
8.2 Legislative Update
Deputy City Manager Madison Thesing presented the legislative update via PowerPoint, providing a
high-level recap of the 2025 session that concluded in June.The presentation reviewed bills the City had
prioritized, including those related to housing,transportation funding, recreational immunity, and
infrastructure investment. She summarized which measures passed or failed, explained their relevance
to City operations, and noted that the League of Oregon Cities would release a comprehensive report on
all legislation affecting cities which would be shared with the Councilors once available.
Community Development Director Jessica Numanoglu continued the presentation with a summary of
key housing-related legislation from the 2025 session via PowerPoint. She reviewed four major bills
affecting the City's planning and permitting processes and described how Staff would address them
through future code updates and administrative procedures.
• Senate Bill 974(Engineering Review Shot Clock) established new deadlines for reviewing engineering
plans for residential development. Cities were required to determine completeness within 30 days
and issue a final decision within 120 days, with mutual extensions permitted up to 245 days. Failure
to meet deadlines could result in fee refunds or payment of applicant costs.The bill also created a
new"Urban Housing Application" category that removed the option for an initial public hearing on
certain land use applications, including planned developments and upzonings, although appeals
could still be heard publicly.The implementation deadline was July 1, 2026. A separate provision
prohibited cities from applying certain design standards to residential projects of 20 units or more,
excluding multifamily housing. Because Lake Oswego typically processed small subdivisions,the
impact was expected to be minimal.The provision would sunset January 1, 2033.
Questions from Councilors were addressed by Staff as noted:
• Numanoglu explained that the City's Code currently required a public hearing for rezoning
applications, and additional clarification on the new Urban Housing Application provisions was
expected from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)the following month.
• Numanoglu noted Senate Bill 974 established a 30-day completeness review period to ensure
engineering submittals contained all necessary materials before the 120-day review timeline began.
• City Manager Bennett added that the City could deny a permit if plans were incomplete,
though that approach would be inefficient for both the City and the applicant. Numanoglu
explained that the flexibility built into the statute was intended to prevent those situations and
encourage applicants to submit plans that could be approved.
• City Attorney Osoinach clarified that a Comprehensive Plan amendment could still include a public
hearing, but certain elements might not become part of the official record of decision even though
public testimony could be received.
Numanoglu continued her presentation, summarizing the following legislation:
• House Bill 2658 established limits on frontage improvements that local governments could require
for renovations or alterations to existing buildings.The restrictions did not apply to new
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18
September 16, 2025
construction or to projects involving changes in occupancy.The bill still allowed cities to require
right-of-way dedication, collect system development charges or local improvement district fees, and
apply ADA-related requirements where applicable.The implementation deadline was 2031.The
measure was not expected to significantly affect Lake Oswego because frontage improvements
were rarely required for minor renovations. She noted that because cities could no longer require
public improvements in those cases, they also could not collect fees in lieu of such improvements.
She confirmed that no other bill adopted during the session preempted the City's ability to require
public improvements, aside from a related provision under House Bill 2138.
• House Bill 2258, known as the Oregon Home Bill, created a "permit-ready plans" program under the
Oregon Building Codes Division that allowed standardized housing plans to proceed directly to
inspection without plan review, provided the applicant did not alter the preapproved plans.The bill
did not preempt local land use regulations, so projects would still need to comply with local
requirements such as setbacks and height limits.The second part of the bill required the Land
Conservation and Development Commission to develop rules by January 1, 2027 to streamline local
development review for certain small scale residential projects that met specified site and zoning
criteria.The rulemaking would determine applicable design standards, allowable variances, approval
procedures, and tree protection measures.
• House Bill 2138 addressed middle housing allowances and included several implementation
deadlines.The bill changed the definitions of middle housing and cottage clusters with most
provisions requiring implementation by January 1, 2027, and the cottage cluster standards extended
to January 1, 2028.The bill allowed middle housing to be attached or detached and permitted
cottage clusters to include attached units with no more than four dwellings per configuration. It
removed the 900-square-foot maximum for cottage clusters and directed the DLCD to define "small
footprint or floor area"through rulemaking. Because the City was expected to implement these
changes before rulemaking was complete, Staff planned to defer related Code amendments until
DLCD issued guidance.
• The City would already need to amend the Code to allow attached cottage clusters,triplexes,
and duplexes. She recommended deferring any changes to minimum unit size standards or
footprint requirements until state rulemaking clarified definitions and timelines.
• House Bill 2138 also prohibited traffic impact analyses for projects with fewer than twelve
townhomes or cottages, which would not significantly affect Lake Oswego because small
residential projects rarely triggered such analyses.
• The bill included new provisions to support sustainability and preserve existing housing. Middle
housing would now be allowed on lots containing an existing dwelling, duplex, or accessory
dwelling unit, allowing new housing to be added behind existing homes even if the original
structures did not meet current development standards.The new units would need to comply
with setbacks and other requirements, and lots could be divided to separate existing dwellings
from new middle housing.
• A final provision established bonus units for applicants who provided either an ADA-accessible
unit or a unit affordable at 120 percent of the area median income (AMI).Triplexes, duplexes,
and cottage clusters could receive one additional unit,while quadplexes,townhomes, and
cottage clusters could receive two additional units under those conditions.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18
September 16, 2025
Responses to Councilor questions regarding bonus units were as follows:
• Cities would be required to amend their codes to ensure that height, density, or floor area standards
could be modified to accommodate the additional bonus units allowed under House Bill 2138.The
legislation did not reference setbacks or lot coverage and did not specify how the required
adjustments would be made.Those details would be determined through rulemaking by the DLCD.
• The impact of these adjustments on local development was not yet known, and it was unclear
whether the new allowances could be added on top of existing exemptions.
Several Councilors expressed concerns about potential increases in building height and density in
residential areas as a result of State legislation. Some Council members reiterated prior concerns about
the erosion of local control over land use decisions and the need for clear State rules that balance
flexibility with home rule authority.
Numanoglu continued her presentation, summarizing a House Bill 2138 provision related to single-room
occupancies (SROs),which were housing units consisting of four or more small, individual, lockable living
spaces that could share kitchens or bathrooms. While no known SROs existed in Lake Oswego,the bill
required cities to allow up to six SRO units on a single-family—zoned lot and to allow three times the
existing density for SROs on multifamily—zoned lots.The new rules did not mandate larger buildings but
allowed more units within the same overall building size.The implementation deadline was January 1,
2027.This requirement, along with other provisions of House Bill 2138,would be incorporated into the
City's upcoming Code audit and amendment project to ensure compliance with State law.The City had
applied for a Metro grant to support that work and had received preliminary approval,with final action
by the Metro Council expected by the end of October.
• She clarified that single-room occupancies (SROs) were classified as residential rather than
commercial uses and were intended for long-term living rather than short-term stays. Facilities such
as hotels, motels, or senior residential housing were considered commercial uses with their own
classifications and were not defined as SROs.The City did not currently define SROs in its Code and
would need to add a definition during a future update.
• She overviewed the Clear and Objective Standards provision in House Bill 2138.The requirement
took effect immediately upon the bill's adoption and applied specifically to the development of
housing. It required that tree removal standards and other related codes use clear and objective
criteria and that such standards not discourage housing through unreasonable cost or delay.The
provision also limited the degree of discretion that could be used if a discretionary review path was
offered in addition to a clear and objective one.The City was in the process of updating its Tree
Code and anticipated focusing on compliance with the new requirements by the following spring.
Clear and objective standards would need to be measurable and not open to interpretation.
Examples included requirements such as preserving a specific percentage of trees on a lot or
maintaining a defined canopy coverage, rather than subjective language related to neighborhood
aesthetics. Staff had not yet determined how to structure these standards and planned to bring
conceptual options to Council for discussion at a study session in November.
• The new standards would not allow unrestricted tree removal. Clear and objective meant that
standards must be measurable and specific, such as requiring preservation of a set percentage
of trees or canopy coverage, rather than using subjective terms.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18
September 16, 2025
• Staff clarified that the City would adopt its own framework for compliance, and that any
disagreement over whether the standards were clear and objective could be appealed to the
Housing Accountability and Production Office or challenged through litigation.
• Another House Bill 2138 provision related to housing density.The bill invalidated covenants,
conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs)that prohibited the development of accessory dwelling units,
middle housing, or prefabricated homes. Any such restrictions adopted before January 1, 2020,
were rendered unenforceable.The implementation deadline was January 1, 2027.The measure
ensured consistent application of middle housing standards across the City so that lots located
within planned developments could not be subject to CC&Rs that prevented compliance with state
housing laws.
Councilor Wendland commented that earlier housing legislation had assured property owners that
existing CC&Rs would remain valid, so this change felt like a reversal of that position. While the new rule
created consistency,the State should have been upfront about its intent when the original housing bill
was passed.
Numanoglu resumed the presentation, reviewing provisions in House Bill 2138 related to middle
housing land divisions.The new requirements took effect immediately and allowed middle housing land
divisions to be processed as expedited land divisions.These applications were decided by the City
Manager within 63 days after being deemed complete. Reviews were handled at the Staff level, and no
appeals were heard by a hearings officer rather than the Development Review Commission or City
Council. Public notice was not required, and the notice of decision was provided only to the applicant.
No public hearing could be held, third-party intervention was not allowed, and only the applicant could
appeal the decision.
• Although the process was highly streamlined, it primarily concerned the division of land for
ownership purposes rather than middle housing development itself. Public concerns typically
centered on the housing projects, not on the land division component, which explained the narrow
appeal process.
• DLCD was required to adopt rules by January 1, 2028 to establish limits on local standards that might
discourage development of manufactured, prefabricated, or site-built middle housing through
unreasonable costs or delays. DLCD was also tasked with defining"small footprint" and "floor area,"
creating incentives for cottage clusters with shared community amenities, and revising parameters
for middle housing types and discretionary reviews.The details of these requirements were not yet
known.
Thesing concluded the presentation with a summary of transportation-related legislation from the
regular and special sessions, highlighting the State's short-term effort to stabilize the Oregon
Department of Transportation's operations and prevent service cuts and layoffs while a longer-term
funding strategy was developed. The legislative discussion also covered accountability measures,tolling
provisions, and adjustments to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF)transit tax,which
was extended with a sunset date in 2028.The measure had passed the House and was awaiting Senate
approval. Overall,the legislation was described as a temporary financial fix rather than a comprehensive
transportation funding package with broader budget considerations expected to be addressed during
the 2026 short session.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18
September 16, 2025
The City Council recessed from 4:41 p.m. through 4:53 p.m.
9. STUDY SESSION
9.1 SB 1537, Mandatory Adjustments and the Approved Exemption
Planning Manager Johanna Hastay provided an update via PowerPoint on Senate Bill 1537 and the
City's requested exemption from mandatory adjustments. SB 1537 focused on removing regulatory
barriers to housing through a mandatory adjustments program that allowed applicants to seek up to ten
design or dimensional adjustments if eligibility standards were met. Cities could apply for exemption if
they demonstrated adequate local variance processes.
• The City applied for and received exemption approval in July 2025,joining a small group of
jurisdictions that qualified.The exemption was granted with conditions requiring annual reporting
and performance standards through 2032, including maintaining at least a 90 percent approval rate
for housing-related land-use applications involving adjustments.
• Required materials included a public notice and a 21-page handout outlining local adjustment
options, State requirements, and procedures for inquiries or complaints.These documents were to
be distributed with all housing-related permits and pre-applications.
• The State cautioned the City against adopting new Code provisions that might create additional
regulatory barriers, directing that flexibility be retained in design and dimensional standards.
• Three local standards did not qualify for exemption and remained subject to the State's mandatory
adjustment process:
• Special street setbacks, for which the City would need to allow at least a 10 percent adjustment.
• Maximum building height,where the State required up to a 20 percent or one-story increase,
overriding the City's 50-foot charter height limit.
• Maximum density,where the City must allow additional housing units when local adjustments
increased massing,though the rule applied only to residential units and not to new lots.
• Council direction was requested on whether to amend the Community Development Code to create
local pathways for special street setbacks and maximum density or to retain the State-mandated
adjustments until the program sunsets in 2032.
• Promoting the local adjustment process could increase application volume and make sustaining a 90
percent approval rate more difficult. A future evaluation of exemption status was recommended if
conflicts or capacity issues arose.
Councilor questions were addressed by Staff as noted:
• Between 10 and 20 applications per year involved housing with adjustments or variances. Those
numbers included every housing type from single-family additions to commercial mixed-use
developments. Many potential applications did not proceed because applicants were guided toward
processes that met existing criteria and avoided delays.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18
September 16, 2025
• Coordination with applicants occurred frequently and helped ensure that most land-use applications
submitted were successful under the City's variance process. Staff was concerned about their
ongoing ability to maintain good customer service while managing the added complexity and
uncertainty created by overlapping legislative updates.
• The City was not subject to the full program of mandatory adjustments, which applied only when a
project demonstrated a net increase in housing and a minimum of 17 units per acre.
• Osoinach said that changing State regulations could create separate classes of applicants depending
on when rules took effect or expired, which could lead to future court challenges.
• Bennett commented the sunset provision functioned more as a pilot project and that legislative
updates often arrived before prior reforms could be evaluated.The constant changes created
uncertainty during a difficult financial climate.
• Osoinach noted the number and detail of new State mandates had increased Staff workload and
diverted time from other City priorities.
Councilors discussed the State's Mandatory Adjustment Program and its impacts on local control with
some noting that maintaining a 90 percent approval rate placed pressure on the City and risked
undermining established local standards. Several members observed that compliance with new
legislative requirements had already required significant Staff time. Others thanked Ms. Hastay, Director
Numanoglu, and Staff for their work and voiced frustration with state mandates that limited local
decision-making, encouraging residents to share their views with legislators.
Mayor Buck directed Staff to see how the legislation and related rulemaking played out and to return at
a later date if further evaluation or Code amendments were needed.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.1 Resolution 24-29,A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending
Resolution 19-03, Regarding Fees and Minimum Insurance Limits for Utilities Operating in the
Public Rights-of-Way; and
Ordinance 2931,An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC
Chapter 51 (Utility Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way),to Clarify and Improve Definitions
Licensing and Reporting Requirements,and the Enforcement Process Regarding Utility
Providers Using the Public Rights-of-Way; and
Ordinance 2965,An Ordinance of The City of Lake Oswego Amending Regulations for Wireless
Facilities in the Public Rights of Way
Osoinach reviewed the hearing procedures and asked if any Councilor wished to declare a financial
conflict of interest. None were heard.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Erica Rooney introduced the item as a continuation of a public
hearing held last spring, which had been continued to address concerns raised at that time.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18
September 16, 2025
Management Analyst Nell Diamond presented the utility and rights-of-way(ROW) related items via
PowerPoint, defining right-of-way use and access and providing background on efforts to update
Chapter 51, originally adopted by Ordinance 2804 in 2019,to standardize terminology and management
of utility facilities in the ROW. The original framework established permitting standards for small cell
wireless facilities consistent with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for size,
location, and appearance.
• In 2021,the City hired a consultant to assist with licensing utility providers and updating Chapter 51.
A telecommunications legal firm under contract with the City also recommended revisions. Due to
personnel changes, the pandemic, and other delays, completion was postponed until 2024.
Recommendations to amend Chapter 51 were revisited and modified to align with current
standards.
• The process continued with the goal of adding clarity, revising definitions, and reviewing fee
structures for utilities in the ROW.A public hearing was held on March 18, 2025, during which
wireless utility stakeholders raised concerns.A follow-up listening session was conducted on April
14, after which updated ordinances and a resolution were drafted.
• The presentation explained the distinctions between wireless communication facilities,which
include antennas, structures, and equipment located on City-owned poles within the ROW. Larger
macro-cell towers provided broad coverage,while smaller cells complemented them by improving
coverage in higher-density areas.
• The three actions proposed were highlighted as follows:
• Ordinance 2931 amended Chapter 51 regulating utilities in the ROW, standardized terms for
utility providers, required licensees to provide facility details, established a framework for
permitting small cell facilities, and aligned City regulations and fees with FCC law.
• Ordinance 2965 updated regulations for wireless facilities in the ROW, replaced Ordinance 2820,
ensured consistency with local, state, and federal law, and corrected minor errors. It focused
specifically on small cell facilities and incorporated design standards consistent with City Code.
• Resolution 2429 updated fee amounts, revised methodology, and addressed concerns raised by
wireless stakeholders at the March hearing.
• The revised fee structure provided greater clarity by separating fees for utility service
providers (facility owners) and operators (entities that owned hardware and leased capacity
to providers).The definition of small wireless facilities was updated to match the federal
definition, reflecting changes at the federal level. Under the new structure, wireless owners
in the ROW would pay an annual cost-based fee rather than a five-percent gross-revenue
fee.Two categories were defined: wireless service facilities, which owned and operated
hardware in the ROW, would pay a cost-based fee of$627.47 per the FCC's methodology;
and communication service providers leasing such facilities would pay a $400 annual
registration fee.
• Concerns regarding removal of equipment were addressed by specifying that qualified
personnel would conduct work in accordance with state and federal safety laws. Ms.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18
September 16, 2025
Diamond concluded that the proposed amendments incorporated stakeholder feedback and
aligned with Council policy goals. Staff recommended enactment of Ordinances 2931 and
2965 and adoption of Resolution 2429.
Questions from Councilors were addressed by Staff as noted:
• Diamond confirmed that providers and facility owners operating within the city were required to
obtain business licenses and pay applicable fees. She explained that fee requirements were the
same regardless of pole ownership, provided the facilities were located within the public ROW.
• Bennett clarified that some poles were privately owned, such as by PGE, but if located in the
ROW,the City's regulations and fees applied.
• Rooney added fees were associated with any equipment installed in the ROW, regardless of
ownership.
• Osoinach stated that the ordinances applied specifically to facilities within the ROW and that
concerns raised by industry representatives regarding locations outside the ROW were unfounded,
as the Code did not extend to private property.
• Diamond confirmed the change from a five-percent franchise fee to a flat-fee structure and
explained that approximately 95 percent of utility providers were larger operators generating about
$3.1 million annually,with an additional $125,000 to$150,000 from entities not subject to the five-
percent franchise fee.
• Osoinach explained that the small cell wireless area was complex and primarily regulated at the
federal level.The City took the necessary time to listen to industry feedback, align with federal law,
and meet Council policy goals.The resulting package represented a balanced approach that
complied with legal requirements while ensuring wireless providers were not discouraged from
expanding coverage in Lake Oswego.
• Osoinach explained that the Code was structured to provide incentives for improved service
performance but that the City lacked clear legal authority to mandate network build-out
requirements for wireless providers.
• Outside Counsel Nancy Werner, Bradley Werner LLC,added that while the City could not require
providers to expand service, the issue could be raised with industry representatives during their
comments.
Councilors expressed frustration with poor cell service in Lake Oswego, and Councilor Mboup objected
to industry claims that the City was violating the law.
Mayor Buck reopened the continued public hearing and called for public testimony.
• Lelah Vaga,Wireless Policy Group,testified on behalf of Verizon and expressed appreciation for
Staff's work. She spoke about concerns regarding private property, noting that macro facilities, or
larger cell towers, were primarily located on private property. In Lake Oswego,the Code did not
allow those facilities within the public ROW, so they were situated on private or non-ROW property.
During the April meeting,Verizon understood that the City was considering the provision of fiber
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18
September 16, 2025
service from a third party. Each time a macro tower was built, both power and fiber optic
connectivity were delivered to the site in the same way as other utilities.Verizon learned, however,
that having fiber optic service delivered to a private site was considered a use of the ROW.As a
result, even if all wireless facilities were on private property, a wireless provider could still be
considered a utility provider under the City's ROW Code because it contracted for that fiber service.
In such arrangements,there was the operator who owned the structure, the operator who owned
the fiber,the provider, sometimes the same or a separate entity, who contracted with the customer
for service, and finally the customer who used that service.
• Verizon was concerned that it would be treated as a utility provider under the Code even when
none of its facilities were in the ROW and it merely purchased fiber service. Wireless and fiber
services were materially different and should not be regulated the same way. If a wireless
carrier operated a small cell in the ROW, built by an infrastructure company that owned all
equipment used to transmit the signal,then it would appropriately be considered a utility
provider under the Code. However, when facilities were entirely on private property and
wireless carriers were only customers of fiber providers, she believed the City's management
under the ROW Code was not applicable. She thanked the City for addressing the gross revenue
concerns, noting that this was a highly complex area of law. She requested clarification about
the cost breakdown supporting the$627 fee, explaining that it was common practice to provide
a breakdown when a fee differed from the federal "safe harbor" rate. She added that most
management of small cell facilities was handled by the wireless carrier and the pole owner,
whether PGE,the carrier itself, or an infrastructure company.
Mayor Buck asked which companies Wireless Policy Group represented that operated within Lake
Oswego. Vaga responded that she was representing Verizon and working on behalf of Troy Gagiano.
Wireless Policy Group also represented other members of the wireless industry, including AT&T.
• Troy Gagliano,Verizon,testified that Verizon did not own any towers or fiber optic cable within
Lake Oswego.Verizon leased infrastructure from companies such as Crown Castle and Lumen, which
paid the five percent gross revenue fee to the City. He compared the arrangement to an apartment
building, noting that while the property owner pays property tax, tenants are not individually taxed
for their use of the property. Verizon was not disputing the $400 annual fee but raised a concern
about fairness and potential double-charging. Oregon and Washington were among the most
challenging regions in which to site wireless infrastructure, largely due to visual impact concerns,
and Verizon engineers were evaluating possible small cell sites in Lake Oswego to improve coverage.
From 2021 to 2023, national data usage doubled,the largest increase ever recorded and was
projected to triple by 2029. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics showed that 83
percent of Americans below the federal poverty line,88 percent of renters, 85 percent of Hispanic
adults, and 86 percent of adults aged 18 to 64 lived in wireless-only homes.Verizon invested
approximately 17 billion dollars annually in expanding and maintaining its network, with
investments directed to jurisdictions where the permitting process was fair, predictable, and clear.
The company supported continued dialogue, particularly regarding the City's volumetric limits on
small cell facilities of three cubic feet and six cubic feet, which were among the lowest in the region,
and requested flexibility to allow exceptions in specific locations where greater capacity might be
needed to improve service.
Councilor Mboup said that he would like to meet with Mr. Gagliano regarding Lake Oswego's cell service
and noted that addressing the poor reception in Iron Mountain was a priority.
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18
September 16, 2025
Councilor Wendland asked whether the concern was that providers were being double charged.
Gagliano replied not under the current proposal, but that had been an issue under the original draft.
Councilor Wendland asked whether the main concern was that wireless providers with facilities on
private property were being charged for ROW use. Vaga confirmed that was correct.At the earlier
hearing her understanding had been different, but at the April follow-up meeting it was clarified that
being a customer of a fiber provider subjected Verizon to ROW regulation. Verizon paid the fiber
provider, and fees were charged to the provider based on those payments,yet Verizon was still being
regulated for ROW use simply for contracting for fiber service.That remained a primary concern, along
with questions about whether the wireless provider fee could legally be set as a flat annual rate rather
than cost-based. She noted that while there were other technical disagreements,the core issue was the
idea that wireless providers with all facilities on private property could be subject to ROW management.
Councilor Wendland asked if that meant Verizon was not using the ROW at all. Gagliano replied that
companies like Lumen or Ziply Fiber, which operated within the ROW, had a physical impact there and
paid franchise fees. If Verizon had infrastructure in the ROW, it would also pay based on gross revenue,
but the issue involved fiber cables transmitting data.When someone made a call,the signal was
transmitted as data through light in a fiber optic cable.Vaga explained that fiber providers, such as
Lumen, operated data centers and switched facilities that connected to Verizon's equipment.The fiber
cable carried multiple users' data to the cell site, where radios converted the signals into radio waves for
wireless transmission. She explained wireless technology was radio-based and distinct from fiber
service,which is why consumers often have both a cell plan and a home internet connection.
Mayor Buck asked if the issue was about charges on towers connected to fiber.Vaga said the concern
was not about the $400 annual charge, but that Verizon was being classified as a utility provider under
the ROW policy simply for being a fiber customer. When the tower was on private property,the City's
explanation was that the fiber line passed through the ROW, and the only alternative would be
microwave backhaul service that avoided the ROW,which was less efficient and impractical.
Councilor Wendland noted that the growing percentage of wireless-only households showed the
importance of reliable service. He recalled earlier Council discussions about tower design and said that
newer, smaller towers were expected to be more efficient and less intrusive.Vaga noted both macro
towers and small cells would continue to be needed. Macro towers provided broad coverage, while
small cells added capacity in targeted areas.The industry once expected widespread small cell
deployment, but those units had proven more expensive and less effective than anticipated. Small cells
now complemented macro towers, using the same frequencies at different power levels to boost service
where needed. Ordinance 2965, she said, opened discussion about volumetric limits and small cell siting
challenges, and Verizon welcomed continued collaboration with Staff.
Gagliano added that constructing new 80-foot towers was difficult, so Verizon aimed to co-locate on
existing infrastructure such as light poles, stadium structures,water towers, or PGE poles. Small cells
could be installed along roadways to fill coverage gaps and maximize the efficiency of existing macro
sites.
• Meridee Pabst,AT&T,thanked Staff for their time, responsiveness, and willingness to listen and
compromise throughout the process. AT&T's primary concern regarded the fee methodology for
wireless providers without facilities located in the ROW. AT&T did not own utility facilities in Lake
Oswego's ROW.Three general bases had historically been used by Oregon cities to charge fees to
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18
September 16, 2025
service providers.The first was through a franchise agreement, which had been Lake Oswego's past
practice. AT&T held franchise agreements with cities such as Portland and Salem where it had
wireless facilities in the ROW and paid associated fees. However, no Oregon city had required AT&T
to obtain a franchise agreement for fiber service purchased from another provider when its towers
were entirely outside the ROW. Franchises were intended to authorize the installation and use of
facilities within the ROW itself. Over time, many Oregon cities transitioned to ROW license codes,
which AT&T generally supported for their flexibility. Most jurisdictions charged wireless providers a
per-site fee only when they had facilities in the ROW.A smaller number of cities, however,
attempted to collect ROW use fees from providers without any ROW facilities. AT&T argued that
indirect use could not be treated as actual use for the purpose of collecting ROW fees.The case
Qwest v. Portland addressed this distinction, noting that taxes or fees for ROW use could not be
imposed for indirect access.The third type of fee historically used by Oregon cities was a privilege
tax,charged for the general privilege of conducting business in a community. Portland,for example,
imposed a Utility License Fee, while Eugene charged a 2 percent registration fee. Since 2019,
Oregon's corporate activity tax had preempted local taxes based on gross receipts, and no new local
taxes had been enacted since.The City's current fee structure appeared more like a privilege tax
than a ROW use fee, since there was no actual ROW occupation under these circumstances.
Although the charge had been revised to a flat fee rather than a percentage of revenue, AT&T had
declined to pay similar fees elsewhere in Oregon based on this same reasoning and would likely do
so in this instance as well.
• Kathy Putt,Crown Castle,stated that Crown Castle, a shared wireless infrastructure provider
operating in Lake Oswego, had different concerns than the carriers. She appreciated the opportunity
to provide testimony on the proposed ordinances and resolution.Wireless services were critically
important in today's economy and daily life, but in order to provide this essential service, providers
needed the ability to operate and periodically upgrade their networks. None of that would be
possible if the proposal were adopted in its current form.
• While the Staff report indicated that stakeholder concerns had been addressed,the concerns of
wireless infrastructure providers had not been resolved despite multiple letters, meetings, and
discussions with Staff. Referring to proposed Ordinance 2931, Section 51.01.100 ("lease
capacity", Page 84 of the packet), she explained that as written, the section would create an
effective prohibition of service for Crown Castle.As a wireless infrastructure provider, Crown
Castle built, operated, and maintained a network of towers, fiber, and small wireless facilities,
and then leased capacity on those facilities to carrier customers. Crown Castle owned the
facilities including antennas,fiber, and related equipment except for the radios,which were
owned by the carrier customers. Subsection 2, however, did not allow a provider to lease
capacity on its network to others if additional equipment owned by the lessee was required.
This language would effectively prevent Crown Castle from leasing capacity to its customers,
which was the core of its business model.The language was new, and this had not been an issue
in the past, so it was unclear why the City was pressing for such prohibitive wording. Deleting
this requirement would allow the company to continue operating within city limits, and Crown
Castle strongly urged the Council to reconsider the provision.
• Section 51.01.130 regarding public ROW fees was also problematic because it charged fees to
both operators and customers for the same facilities.As the licensed operator of facilities in the
ROW, Crown Castle expected to pay for its use. However,federal law required that any such
fees be based on the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining the ROW.There was no
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18
September 16, 2025
additional cost to the City when a customer used Crown Castle's infrastructure to provide
service; therefore, customers should not be required to pay any fee to the City for that use.This
section needed further work because it focused on imposing fees on various types of users
rather than applying cost-based fees to telecom facilities located in the ROW.
• Despite the Staff report's claim that stakeholder concerns about fees had been addressed,
Crown Castle's concerns remained unresolved. On Page 2,the City proposed separate fees for
small wireless facilities and for the fiber that served as a critical component of the network.
Neither fee appeared to be cost based, as required by federal law. Page 17 of the Staff report
stated that entities owning, placing, operating, or maintaining small wireless facilities in the
ROW would pay cost based fees under FCC rules, yet the proposed fees did not appear to reflect
City ROW costs. On the following page,the City proposed a $400 annual flat fee for service
providers that did not own facilities in the ROW. Because these providers used existing
infrastructure,there was no related cost to the City, and such a fee should not apply.
• Regarding proposed Ordinance 2965, Crown Castle had submitted written comments the day
prior outlining numerous issues. Significant portions of the ordinance were inconsistent with
federal regulations and, as written,would prevent Crown Castle from upgrading its existing
facilities.The original ordinance was adopted in 2019,and conditions had changed substantially
since then. She recommended that the City conduct a comprehensive rewrite, as the ordinance
was overly restrictive and out of compliance with federal requirements.
• In conclusion, if adopted in its current form, the proposed changes would prohibit Crown Castle
from building or operating its existing wireless network. If the City valued connectivity and
private sector investment, it should delay adoption until a mutually agreeable solution
consistent with federal regulations could be reached. Regulations such as these, she noted,
often drove projects out of one community and into the next.
Councilor Afghan asked about the financial impact that Crown Castle described as a hardship. Ms. Putt
clarified the issue was not about the fee amounts, which were small, but rather how the fees were
calculated. Federal law required that such fees be cost based, and the proposed structure, whether five
percent of gross revenues or a per linear foot fee for fiber, did not meet that requirement.The proposal
also continued to allow what she described as double charging, with both Crown Castle and its carrier
customers being charged for use of the same facilities. Under the standards in Ordinance 2965, Crown
Castle would be unable to upgrade its existing facilities.The company was currently exploring a project
to do so, but the proposed standards would prevent it. Crown Castle's goal was to operate in
communities where fees and regulations were consistent with federal law, and if they were not,the
company would not contest the issue but would instead invest in other jurisdictions.
• Skip Newberry, President and CEO,Technology Association of Oregon,testified that the pace of
technological change was accelerating, and both residents and businesses were becoming
increasingly dependent on wireless infrastructure for health care, banking, education, government
services, public safety, and employment opportunities.To remain competitive, communities needed
to attract and retain residents and businesses by remaining appealing places for wireless
investment.Achieving digital equity and economic development goals was not possible without
practical steps to support continued infrastructure investment.The City was asked to keep its rules
flexible to allow innovation in wireless technology, particularly in the design standards for small cells
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18
September 16, 2025
in Ordinance 2965, and to continue dialogue with the industry about providing flexibility in total
equipment volume to accommodate evolving technology.
Mayor Buck confirmed there was no further testimony and closed the public hearing.
Mayor Buck noted that he could not find companies such as Verizon,AT&T, or Crown Castle on the
City's business licenses. Diamond said she would follow up, as she believed they did hold business
licenses.
Osoinach explained that the legislation represented a compromise.To the extent that any provider
disagreed with the City's approach, it reflected a philosophical difference rather than a financial one.As
with most legislative issues, compromise was typically the resolution, and the ordinances before Council
were the product of that process.
Werner stated that the Ordinance had been in place since 2019 and had applied to both owners and
users since that time.There were some clarifications on how it applied to different ROW users, but it
was not a significant change in City practice. Lake Oswego, like many Oregon cities, imposed fees on
both owners and users because in the past, some wireline companies had separated ownership and
service operations to avoid paying revenue-based fees.To prevent such loopholes, cities began requiring
both entities to pay fees tied to their benefit from ROW use.The City's current approach followed that
model, applying consistent principles to wireless providers while implementing a low,flat fee structure.
The reasoning extended logically to wireless companies leasing fiber infrastructure in the ROW. Whether
a provider leased a small cell or fiber line, it was still benefiting from public ROW access, and the flat
$400 fee ensured consistency without double-charging.
Mayor Buck raised the issue of the "lease capacity" provision and Crown Castle's claim that the
proposed ordinance would prevent it from operating.Werner responded that federal law required cost-
based fees only for small wireless facilities physically installed in the ROW, not for all types of
telecommunications facilities.The ordinance did not require Crown Castle to pay two fees; rather, it
recognized that owners and lessees made different uses of the ROW and should both contribute to
maintenance costs.She disagreed that charging a $400 flat fee to companies leasing ROW facilities
constituted a prohibition on service.
City Manager Bennett asked for clarification regarding whether small cell providers had to own all the
equipment on their poles.Werner explained that the existing ordinance already contained language to
that effect and that the revised lease capacity section actually made the provision less restrictive.
Facility owners could lease to any party, provided that the lessee did not add new infrastructure to the
ROW. If new facilities were installed,that entity would need its own license. The rule did not interfere
with leasing arrangements; it simply clarified license obligations for entities introducing new ROW
infrastructure.
Councilor Wendland asked whether the ordinance could discourage investment or limit the industry's
ability to upgrade equipment. Osoinach confirmed that Staff recommended adoption of the ordinances
and resolution, emphasizing that, in her legal opinion supported by outside counsel,the package
complied fully with federal law. While industry representatives had expressed disagreement,she said
the process had been designed to balance compliance,fairness, and Council's policy goal of maintaining
an inviting investment environment. Whether the regulations might discourage investment was
uncertain, but Staff believed they represented a reasonable and lawful compromise consistent with the
City's intent not to deter industry participation. Her opinion was that the ordinance reflected Council's
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18
September 16, 2025
direction and that entities using the ROW should not do so without contributing to its management and
maintenance costs.Although some industry representatives disagreed with the City's approach,the
ordinances presented a fair and balanced policy for Council consideration.
Councilor Mboup moved to adopt Resolution 24-29 and enact Ordinances 2931 and 2965. Councilor
Rapf seconded the motion.
Mayor Buck thanked Staff for their work and the industry representatives for their comments, noting
that the City needed to reach middle ground and finalize the matter.
A voice vote was held,and the motion passed,with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan,Corrigan,
Mboup, Rapf,Verdick,and Wendland voting`aye', (7-0).
Councilor Wendland said he would like Staff to review whether there was flexibility within the size
parameters for equipment boxes and to consider options for maximizing or adjusting them if needed.
The City Council recessed from 7:19 p.m.to 7:27 p.m.
11. ADJOURNMENT,CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:27 p.m.
12. CALL TO ORDER, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Chair Buck called to order the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 7:27 p.m.
13. BOARD BUSINESS
The City Council met as the Redevelopment Agency Board.
14. ADJOURNMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY(LORA)
Chair Buck adjourned the Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 7:41 p.m.
15. CALL TO ORDER,CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck called to order the City Council meeting at 7:41 p.m.
16. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
Mayor Buck recognized Laural Hawkins,the new City Recorder, and thanked Kim Ono for her services as
Interim City Recorder.
Councilor Afghan reported that the Community Health and Resiliency Advisory Board (CHRAB), as part
of its formation process,was reviewing its mission statement and defining its role and responsibilities.
The group planned to finalize some refinements and bring them to the City Council for approval.
17. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18
September 16, 2025
City Manager Bennett requested Council discussion and authorization to submit a letter to the
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) regarding its proposal to eliminate the endangerment finding,
which serves as the foundation for linking climate change to human health and supporting related
regulatory actions.
Sustainability Program Manager Amanda Watson explained that the letter concerned the EPA's
proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which determined that greenhouse gases threaten
human health and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.The proposed rule would remove federal
greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles and limit the EPA's authority to regulate emissions from
transportation and power plants, leaving state and local governments unable to act in their place.The
City's draft comment letter opposed the proposal because it would undermine Lake Oswego's adopted
Climate Action Goals.The letter cited the growing scientific consensus on climate change, described
local impacts such as extreme heat and severe winter storms, and stressed the importance of reducing
transportation-related emissions.The letter would also join those from other jurisdictions and
sustainability networks, helping to build the administrative record urging the EPA to retain its regulatory
authority.
Mayor Buck confirmed the Council's support for sending the letter to the EPA.
18. ADJOURNMENT,CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Buck adjourned the City Council Meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Laural Hawkins, City Recorder
Approved by the City Council on November 4, 2025.
Joseph M. Buck, Mayor
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18
September 16, 2025