Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2026-06-15 AGENDA 04� E�J' ' Sustainability Advisory Board V -- O 15 June 2026 6:30—8:30 pm �REG�� Willow A Room, Lake Oswego Maintenance Center, 17601 Pilkington Rd Staff Contact: Sara Stith, sstith@lakeoswego.city Virtual Access ADA Accommodation Requests Translation Services This meeting will be held remotely lakeoswego.city/accommodation Traduccion o interpretacion via Zoom.To participate remotely, 503-635-0282; Relay 711 aai l i please email the staff contact at Please allow four business days to ��� O 1 1 least 24 hours before the meeting. process your request. 503-534-5738 Buzz Chandler, Co-Chair • Whitney Street, Co-Chair• Lisa Helfer • Isabela Hollingshead • Kara Orvieto Mark Puhlman • Lisa Strader • Calixto Hearn • Rohan Sekar 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • May 18, 2026 Draft Minutes 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comments related to an item on the agenda will be held until after that agenda item. The purpose of Public Comment is to allow community members to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. Public Comment will not exceed thirty minutes in total. If you are unable to attend the meeting and prefer to provide public comment in writing, please email the comment to the staff contact listed above at least 24 hours before the meeting. 4. CODE ENFORCEMENT PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION (60 min, Information/Discussion) 5. BOARD MEMBER PROPOSAL: COMMUNITY-LED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES (10 min, Information/Discussion) 6. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE (10 min, Information) 7. BOARD &STAFF UPDATES (10 min, Information) • Youth Member updates • Staff Updates— Ethics training recap, Regional Cities GPLE Working Group, Farmers Market tabling 8. FAREWELL TO DEPARTING BOARD MEMBERS (10 min) 9. ADJOURNMENT— Next Meeting: Monday, July 20, 6:30—8:30 pm Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-635-0291 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO �A� Sustainability Advisory Board v 0 Action Minutes Eoi>" May 18, 2026 DRAFT Call to Order/ Roll Call Co-chair Buzz Chandler called the March meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Board to order at 6:34pm, located at City Hall Council Chambers, 380 A Ave, Lake Oswego, OR 97034. Members Present: Buzz Chandler, Lisa Helfer, Isabela Hollingshead (virtual), Kara Orvieto, Mark Puhlman, Lisa Strader, Calixto Hearn, Rohan Sekar Members Excused/Absent: Whitney Street, Angelique Leonard (SAB Alternate) Staff: Mayor Joe Buck, Sara Stith (Sustainability Program Manager) Public: Mike Perham (SAB Alternate), Lisa Adatto (Lake Oswego Sustainability Network) Approval of Minutes Lisa Strader made a motion to approve the March 2026 meeting minutes as written, Mike Perham seconded, minutes approved unanimously. Public Comment None. Regular Business A. Presentation on Thermal Energy Networks(TENs) Lisa Adatto from the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN) presented information on Thermal Energy Networks (TENs), including how the systems function, examples of implementation in other communities, and potential opportunities for incorporation into the Foothills District planning process. Discussion topics included: • The distinction between ambient geothermal systems and traditional geothermal energy generation. • Potential benefits of TENs, including reduced carbon emissions, long-term energy savings, and opportunities for clean local energy infrastructure. • Feasibility considerations related to density, upfront infrastructure costs, financing models, and phased implementation. • Potential integration with the Foothills redevelopment area and the importance of incorporating TENs considerations early in the planning process. • Existing examples of TENs projects in Oregon and across the country, including developments in Texas and Salem. City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes Page 1 of 4 May 18, 2026 • Ownership and maintenance models, including utility-style management structures, homeowner associations, or private operators. • Potential environmental impacts, including tree removal, construction impacts, and lifecycle carbon considerations. • Questions regarding funding opportunities, feasibility studies, and long-term maintenance responsibilities. Lisa shared information about an upcoming June 8th educational panel event focused on TENs and encouraged Board members to attend. B. City Council Update Mayor Joe Buck provided updates on recent and upcoming City Council activities, including: • Ongoing Tree Code refinement discussions, including right-of-way tree responsibility, nuisance tree provisions,forest management permits,and appeal procedures related to housing projects. • Continued discussions regarding the North Anchor project and phased development considerations in Foothills. • Updates on pathway and greenway construction projects, including connections near Waluga Park, Meadows Rd, and River Grove. • The Council vacancy recruitment process, including interviews for finalists to fill the interim position through the end of the calendar year. • Recruitment efforts for the City Manager position. • Ongoing concerns regarding e-bikes and e-motos, including safety concerns, enforcement challenges, and potential future ordinance development related to operation and rider behavior. Board members discussed state versus local authority for licensing and enforcement, school-related concerns, and broader community safety. C. April Joint Boards Meeting Recap Board members discussed the recent joint boards meeting with Parks Board related to the Tree Code amendments project. Co-chair Buzz Chandler shared comments submitted regarding the possibility of using solar voltaic installations as a mitigation option in certain circumstances where tree removal occurs during redevelopment projects. Discussion also included invasive species mitigation and broader energy efficiency considerations within the Tree Code permitting framework. Members noted appreciation for the collaborative discussion format and discussed challenges associated with hybrid meeting participation and audio quality. D. Board &Staff Updates Sustainability Fair Board members reflected on the recent Sustainability Resource Fair and discussed opportunities to broaden community engagement at future events. It was noted that the bicycle giveaway component with Shifting Gears has historically drawn significant attendance, though members discussed balancing attendance incentives with broader sustainability-focused engagement opportunities. City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes Page 2 of 4 May 18, 2026 SAB Tabling at Farmers Markets Sara Stith shared that she has requested time slots from the farmers market coordinator for SAB to table and engage with community members on City sustainability goals and initiatives. Sustainable Buildings Policy(SBP) and Gas-Powered Lawn Equipment(GPLE) Working Groups Sara Stith shared updates on the interdepartmental Sustainable Buildings Policy (SBP) working group that kicked off on May 4th. Kickoff meeting topics included discussions on the purpose of a SBP and its connection to broader sustainability targets, previous work on this initiative, and diverse department roles, responsibilities, and perspectives. The group will convene monthly, and the next meeting is scheduled for Monday,June 8th The other working group for regional cities is focused on gas-powered lawn equipment (GPLE),with a kickoff meeting scheduled for May 26th.The purpose of this group is to leverage regional resources and outreach networks to align minimum standards and/or policy guidance on this subject. Board members discussed these ongoing efforts, including the following: • Coordination with neighboring jurisdictions to avoid inconsistent regulations across the region • Outreach to landscaping professionals currently transitioning to electric equipment. • Policy considerations related to additional landscaping tools beyond leaf blowers. • Potential phased implementation approaches and future review periods as technology continues to evolve. Foothills Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Co-chair Kara Orvieto shared an update on recent Foothills planning meetings and community engagement efforts. Consultants have continued outreach with neighborhood groups, business representatives, and community organizations to gather feedback on redevelopment priorities. Discussed focused on: • Improving connectivity between Foothills, downtown, and the Willamette River. • Mixed-use development concepts, community gathering spaces, and multimodal transportation. • Preliminary conceptual design options and future 3D modeling efforts. • Long-term infrastructure challenges related to site grading,transportation access, rail constraints, and the future wastewater treatment facility. • Potential ecological restoration opportunities associated with Tryon Creek and salmon habitat restoration efforts. E. Future Climate Collective (FCC) Proposal for Collaboration Board members discussed the proposal from the Future Climate Collective (FCC) regarding potential collaboration opportunities to support youth climate leadership and sustainability initiatives aligned with SAB goals. Discussion topics included: City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes Page 3 of 4 May 18, 2026 • FCC's mentorship-based structure and connections with climate professionals and regional business leaders. • Opportunities for student engagement, youth leadership development, and alignment with SAB's long-term sustainability goals. • Potential coordination with existing youth groups, including local high school Green Teams and the Youth Leadership Council (YLC). • Questions related to funding structure and the appropriate scope of SAB involvement. • Interest in clarifying expectations for SAB participation, reporting structures, and potential advisory roles. The Board agreed to continue reviewing the proposal and compile additional questions and feedback for FCC representatives prior to further discussion at a future meeting. Adjournment Co-Chair Buzz Chandler adjourned the meeting at 8:42 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sara Stith Sustainability Program Manager City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes Page 4 of 4 May 18, 2026 Sustainability Advisory Board Unlawful Noise Enforcement Overview 06-15-26 Code Enforcement (CE) Basics: - Overview of civil violation enforcement: o The information provided at the meeting on June 15th will focus on the enforcement of civil violations, rather than criminal violations, since unlawful noise is a civil violation. ■ Examples of civil violations include a violation of the Nuisance Code (where unlawful noise is regulated), Sign Code; Tree Code, Community Development Code, and others. ■ City enforcement of civil violations is decentralized and falls to different departments depending on the type of violation, although there are collaboration and coordination among departments. ■ Civil violations that remain unresolved or are a repeat offense, may be punishable by the payment of a violation fee (if compliance is voluntary), or by the payment of a fine (if compliance requires Municipal Court action). • Currently the violation fee amount is $601 for an unlawful noise civil violation. This fee is determined by the Master Fees and Charges ordinance approved each year by the City Council. • Currently the Municipal Court presumptive fine amount is $601 for an unlawful noise citation fine. However, the Municipal Court Judge may approve a fine of up to $1,000. The Judge approves the Presumptive Fine amount for a Nuisance code violation. ■ Note: CE resources are limited and are based upon the concept that a large majority of people with a civil violation will voluntarily comply. - Unlawful Noise Complaint Responders: o Enforcement of unlawful noise is shared between the Police Department (PD) and the Code Enforcement specialists (CE) in the Community Development Department. ■ Generally, CE staff responds to noise complaints during their office hours, Monday— Friday 8:00 a.m. —4:00 p.m. ■ PD officer responds to complaints outside of CE office hours. o Complaints are received by people contacting code enforcement directly by email and voicemail, and by city staff forwarding complaints they receive. - Unlawful Noise is regulated by LOC 34.10.537 and LOC 34.10.539: o Lake Oswego Code (LOC) 34.10.537 Loud or Disturbing Unnecessary Noise Unlawful noise: "It shall be unlawful for any person to create, assist in creating, permit, continue or permit the continuance of any unnecessary loud or disturbing noise in the City at any time of day." o LOC 34.10.539 Specific Noise Prohibitions. Describes noise from specific sources and establishes timeframes during which unnecessary loud or disturbing noise is prohibited. ■ Common examples of unlawful noise include construction noise; noise from gatherings, amplified noise (music speakers or microphone), etc. outside of the allowed timeframes. o Necessary loud or disturbing noise is lawful. ■ Examples include garbage collection noise prior to 7:00 a.m.; ■ Construction noise, amplified sound, etc. occurring after 7:00 a.m. and prior to 10:00 p.m. - CE complaint procedure o Once a complaint is received, CE Specialists follow the procedure below: ■ Verify the complaint. • Meet with the complainant to: o verify the complaint is occurring inside the city limits; and o understand the issue (who, what, when, and where) to determine if a code violation exists. • Only complaints with sufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation occurred are investigated further. After the complaint is verified. ■ Contact the property owner and the person(s) who performed the work to discuss the requirements of the codes, the actions needed for compliance and a day by which to comply or to show progress toward compliance ■ Issue a letter with a violation fee if progress is not made. • A letter requiring payment of a violation fee and a date by which to pay the fee is issued if progress toward compliance is not made by the date provided, or if the violation cannot be undone, such as a tree removed without a permit or a house demolished without a permit. ■ Issue a citation for the violation if the violation fee is not paid or continuous progress toward compliance does not occurr. • A citation is issued once other attempts to achieve compliance or progress toward compliance have failed. • A citation is processed by the Lake Oswego Municipal Court and requires the recipient to enter a plea of "Guilty", "No Contest" or "Not Guilty" o If a plea of"Guilty" or "No Contest" is entered, the Judge approves the citation, and the defendant pays a presumptive fine to the Court. ■ Note: approval of the citation only requires the payment of a fine to the Court. It does not require the defendant to complete the actions needed to comply with city codes such as buying an electric leaf blower. ■ In some cases, CE staff must issue additional citations for the violation as an incentive for the defendant to comply. • If a plea of"Not Guilty" is entered to the Court a hearing is scheduled for CE staff and the defendant to provide evidence to the judge as to why a violation occurred or did not occur. o Based upon the evidence presented the Judge finds the defendant either Guilty or Not Guilty. ■ Note: the citation process takes months and is labor-intensive; as such, it is only used when other attempts to reach compliance have failed. - Current Civil Violation Code Enforcement Approach: o Department Priorities. The number and type of civil violations vary by department, as well as their response depending on the nature and urgency of the violation. ■ However, some common factors in most civil violation investigations include: • Staff making a concerted effort to balance enforcement with community relations and striving to resolve violations first through education and voluntary compliance; • Only when progress toward compliance does not occur, are additional actions taken such as requiring payment of a violation fee, or initiating court action for the payment of fines. o Equity. Equity means that all community members are treated fairly and justly, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, or background. ■ Data has not been collected specifically to evaluate equity in the City's civil enforcement programs; therefore, we do not currently know whether these programs result in inequitable outcomes. ■ Anecdotally, we know an enforcement system solely based on complaints is inequitable because it results in inconsistent treatment. • It can reward residents who feel comfortable contacting the government, such as people who speak English fluently, are more socio-economically well off, and have trust in local government. • This can lead to higher rates of complaints and enforcement actions in some neighborhoods, but not others, and can disproportionately affect communities of color or lower-income residents who may be targets of the complaints and don't feel comfortable contacting the government. ■ An enforcement system can be inequitable when it prioritizes punitive actions and fines over code compliance. • For example, issuing fines for nuisance violations, such as unlawful noise, could disproportionately affect lower-income residents who may already be experiencing financial hardship, or disabled or elderly residents who are unable to perform maintenance, and diverts money to fines instead of addressing the problem. o Workload Priorities. CE must balance their workload to resolve on-going cases as well as investigate new cases and perform their other work tasks. ■ Currently other work tasks for CE take approximately+/-40% of a typical workday. • On average, CE Specialists have 30-50 active complaint cases at any given time while at the same time resolving approximately 12 violation cases, completing 5-10 Planning inspections, and issuing 54 Tree Protection plan approvals each month. ■ Enforcement cases are prioritized based upon urgency and evidence. • With defendant cooperation, some cases are investigated and resolved within a day or two. • Without cooperation, enforcement cases can take months, or even years, to resolve. ■ Enforcement cases are prioritized and handled based on the following factors: • Public safety or health issue—violations that pose an immediate threat to the public are addressed as soon as possible. Examples include injuring a tree during construction that may make it likely to fall, active construction without permits, improper storage of food scraps/garbage that is attracting rodents, etc. and. • Worsening vs. static violations—violation activities that are in progress have priority over violations that are not active. ■ Repeat offenders or non-compliance—violation fees are charged: • For a repeat offender; or, • After education efforts and time to comply do not result in progress toward compliance. ■ Enforceability/Limited Evidence — low enforcement priority is given to cases where there is limited evidence of a violation or where collecting evidence is limited or not possible. Examples: the party responsible is not known due to city staff not hearing the violation; a witness is unwilling to testify; staff is unable to determine the day a violation occurred; or long-term surveillance is required to substantiate the violation. ■ Misuse of limited enforcement resources—while CE staff investigate all complaints, maintaining an efficient use of staff time is challenging when the system is misused. • It is not uncommon for neighbors who have disagreements to attempt to use the code enforcement process as a way to cause distress to their neighbor by reporting serial complaints, often to multiple departments (Police Department, City Manager's Office and Code Enforcement staff), which in turn can lead the other neighbor to file complaints in retaliation. Depending on the circumstances involved, these situations may be given a low priority. Code Enforcement Considerations. Enforcing unlawful noise regulations can be particularly challenging: - The responder to a noise complaint must hear the noise in person to determine if the noise is unnecessarily loud or disturbing. Thereby requiring a prompt response for the best chance of success. o A judge will only allow a video or sound recording as evidence if the person who made the recording testifies in court as to the circumstances of collecting the noise. o Unlawful noise is not tied to a maximum decibel limit, so other evidence must be provided to the judge to show when the noise occurred.