Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-05-22 AM !. Inc[oskY CITY COUNCIL MORNING MEETING MINUTES '� May 22, 2001 ,,,,,,,71owaitE_.<, Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. on May 22, 2001, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Long Range Planning Manager 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA David Powell, City Attorney, confirmed to Councilor McPeak that staff and the appellants would meet this morning to discuss the Item 5 concerns (regarding LU 00-0028/AP 01-04 , Derby), which he had mentioned in his e-mail. He noted that the best-case scenario was the City and the developer reaching a resolution of the issues and agreeing on what to recommend to the Council. Councilor Hoffman discussed changes to the page numbering and cross-references in the staff report in order to make it easier to use. He pointed out that only four of the seven Planning Commissioners were present again at this hearing. Mr. Powell clarified the City hearing procedures for Mayor Hammerstad. He explained that the Council could look at anything in the record, whether or not the appellant raised it on appeal. He emphasized that introducing new evidence or making a change that required new evidence presented a problem; the Council might have to remand the appeal to the Development Review Commission (DRC). Mr. Powell confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the Council could come to a different conclusion than the DRC, based on its analysis of the criteria, even if the appellant was not appealing that point. He mentioned that the City Code allowed the opponents to raise points not raised in the appeal, as long as the evidence was in the record. He reviewed the Council's options and the hearing procedures if the Council wanted to impose a new condition or substantially change the design as presented. 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Staff confirmed to Councilor McPeak that the Council was scheduled to adopt the City budget as well as the LORA budget following the separate hearings on June 5. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the Waluga Neighborhood Plan was off the table. Councilor Hoffman requested an Executive Session during the morning meeting to discuss what happened with the four Councilors from Bend who got into trouble from making a decision by e- mail. Mr. Powell said that he would write up a memo giving his opinion on the matter. Mayor Hammerstad commented that she did not think that this Council chatted together online, which was what they needed to be careful about. Councilor Rohde asked staff to clarify on the future schedule when the status of an item was that it was still at the Commission level, and not `awaiting scheduling.' He mentioned 'long City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 May 22, 2001 term care housing' in particular, which staff stated was still at the Planning Commission but the status listed it as `awaiting scheduling at the Council.' Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the addition of the asset builders coalition to June 5, in order to have it on TV night. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Annexation Policy Mayor Hammerstad thanked Councilor Hoffman for his work on the annexation paper. Councilor Hoffman recalled the opposition that the City ran into two years ago when attempting to annex the island of the Birds Hill community, which led to his research on the Internet into the pros and cons of island annexation. He suggested having a Council discussion on the pros and cons of island annexation, given that Lake Oswego had other islands that it would eventually annex besides the Stampher Road area. He spoke to the Council either adopting a policy for future Councils or somehow setting a vision for the process the City would use over the next five years to annex islands. Councilor Hoffman observed that this was a politically challenging issue. He mentioned that annexation was frequently contentious because people did not want to pay City taxes while enjoying the benefits of city living. He argued that the City had an obligation to its residents to take a position the issue. Councilor Turchi observed that he saw annexation as a simple issue that played itself out in emotionally difficult terms. He mentioned his belief that people who lived within the influence of the city ought to be part of the city. He held that the Council should keep good faith with the city taxpayers by asking those who were taking advantage of city services to become part of the city. He argued that people knew when they moved into an area that there was the potential for annexation. He supported annexing islands. Councilor Schoen commented that to a degree, this was an education problem. He suggested sending Councilor Hoffman's outline to the newspaper in order to inform the community with respect to the issues. He concurred with Councilor Turchi that the overriding issue was that the people taking advantage of the city infrastructure and services should participate with the rest of the community. He indicated that he continued to favor moving forward with island annexations. Councilor McPeak noted that she came on the Council after the earlier decision by the Council. She mentioned that the testimony of the Stampher Road group last year troubled her; it was a well-educated, middle-class or higher group of people with strong negative feelings about joining the city. She commented that there was a Western American element of`leave me alone.' Councilor McPeak pointed out that many of those people had lived in the area for a long time, and did not move there to take advantage of anything. She observed that some might have moved there to get away from the city. She indicated that she understood the philosophy behind island annexations, as island residents could easily take advantage of the services paid for by city residents, but she did not find this an easy issue. Councilor McPeak noted that the City would lose money for a long time on a Stampher Road area annexation, which made the financial cost benefits argument murky. She stated that, when pressed, she would vote to uphold the policy but she did not know what she would do when the Stampher Road annexation returned to Council. Councilor Graham spoke to her concern that, given the community's definite ideas of planning for the future, things might happen in areas that the City did not annex, which the community did not want to happen. She argued that that would destroy what they were trying to build for the community. She acknowledged the pioneer spirit of people who have lived in certain areas for City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 May 22, 2001 years. She held that things changed; the Council needed to protect what the City had and what it planned to have down the road. Councilor Graham stated that she favored annexation. She thanked staff for putting the costs for the areas on a spreadsheet, as that presented a realistic picture of what the City would gain with annexations. Mayor Hammerstad asked Jane Heisler, Long Range Planning Manager, what the difference was between the tax rates of typical taxing districts outside the City and the City's tax rate of $5.04. (page 27). Ms. Heisler indicated that the bundle of services provided by the County cost around $12 per$1,000, which increased by almost $3 to $15 per$1,000 upon annexation to the city. She noted that the biggest change was the switch from the $1.90 paid to Lake Grove Fire to the $4.75 City rate. Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor McPeak that staff determined what the City spent per capita in the city right now, based on the budget. She said that they tried to apply it to these areas based on population. She noted that the chart did not indicate that, after 40 years of substandard streets, the only way to obtain an accurate figure was to do an on-site analysis of the neighborhood's needs. She concurred that some areas might have substantially higher costs than listed on the chart. Mayor Hammerstad asked if the sewer rates of USA were comparable to the City rates. She observed that the problem was that people did not want to pay the $2 plus in City taxes, if they felt that they were getting nothing for their money. She commented that, sitting on the sidelines during the Stampher Road/Birds Hill situation, she had thought it difficult to justify to the satisfaction level of the neighbors that they were getting something worth the additional $2 plus per$1,000. Mayor Hammerstad commented that this presented a dilemma for the Council on what to spend its time on. She described this as going through a divisive process, in which the Council could end up forcibly annexing people. She mentioned the residual ill will of those annexed against their will. She indicated that, from a public policy standpoint, she agreed that the City should annex those who received the benefits of municipal government. She pointed out that if they went forward with island annexations, they did so knowing that they would have to spend 'a lot of the chips in their pocket' on something that might not be fruitful. Councilor McPeak asked if continuing the policy with an occasional exception destroyed the policy. Councilor Rohde argued that the City saying `we're firm on this unless you are angry' would destroy the policy. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the history of the Boundary Commission's handling of annexations was that if someone objected to annexation for any reason, then the Boundary Commission exempted them. She commented that the City appeared to be headed towards a more consistent policy than the Boundary Commission had. Councilor Rohde spoke to recognizing that the Birds Hill argument had been that they would not get an additional $3 worth of benefit out of annexation. He argued that Birds Hill has been stealing $3 from Lake Oswego citizens by not annexing, that they received $15 per$1,000 worth of services now because of where they lived. He contended that these residents have benefited in terms of their property value and safety because those around them have paid for it. He characterized the situation as they have not been paying for what they have already been getting; the situation was not that they should be getting more if they annexed. Councilor McPeak pointed out that everyone drifted into other areas and took advantage of things that those taxpayers provided, such as driving on a Portland road. Councilor Turchi argued that there was a difference between driving some place and putting down roots some place. He acknowledged Councilor Rohde's money argument but spoke to another important consideration: the quality of the community and its land use planning. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 May 22, 2001 Councilor Turchi commented that for his neighbors in the county, when he lived on Carman Drive,the issue was that they did not want the City land use planning regulations or restrictions on tree cutting; it was an issue of individuality, freedom and rights. He discussed another issue of the longtime Lake Grove residents who had their own water district and wanted nothing to do with the City of Lake Oswego. He indicated that he did not think that the $2 per$1,000 meant that much. Councilor Hoffman mentioned his concern that the City did not regulate the nursing homes along Country Club or the signs; they had no control over a use along a major thoroughfare. He referenced Councilor Rohde's comments about the people getting angry. He spoke to a philosophy of community: either someone was part of it or someone was not part of it. He concurred with Councilor Turchi about the difference between driving from here to Portland and setting down roots in a community. He indicated that he was troubled by people living in islands who set down their roots in this community and used the City resources without contributing towards them, such as the Farmers' Market. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the City supported a variety of things through its budget process, to which one could not assign a dollar value, such as Arts Downtown or the Clackamas Women's Shelter. She commented that this reflected the policies and the philosophy of the City that its residents benefited from such things as part of the community. Mayor Hammerstad commented that as people became more familiar with something, they became friendlier towards it. She spoke to finding a more understandable or friendly process to proceed with annexation. She asked if they could decide to phase in annexation over six months to a year, which would give people the opportunity to move if they did not want to live in the city. Councilor Rohde held that the problem was that giving people more than an election cycle(two years) resulted in a new Council making the decision; depending on the dynamics, a two-year window could hurt the effort. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that they could say they had to make the decision by a stated date. Ms. Heisler mentioned that the statute included the ability to phase taxes in over and up to a 10- year period. Councilor McPeak commented that she thought they could do a policy that most people would accept, as it was a political judgment. She indicated that that was why the testimony of the Stampher Road people bothered her; it gave such a contrary view. Councilor Rohde recalled that Fairway Road dropped its opposition when the City agreed to put a sewer line in. He held that Stampher Road would drop its opposition if the City agreed to install an 8-inch water line. He remarked that the City would find out what other areas wanted, which was another way to gain a greater acceptance of annexation by the area residents. Mayor Hammerstad commented that there was a perception among residents that, by annexing in, they should have a higher level of service than they currently had. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated that the City was correcting Stampher Road's 2-inch water line without annexation. Councilor McPeak recalled that the Stampher Road residents testified that if the City would provide that line, much of the opposition would go away; the neighbors' contention was that the City has never done anything for them. Mayor Hammerstad noted their upcoming meeting with the County Commissioners. She indicated to Councilor Hoffman that she would include the signage along Country Club Road but spoke against the City getting involved in the regulation of nursing homes, as the County did a more stringent job of that than the State required; it was not something that the City wanted to get involved in. Councilor Hoffman asked staff to keep the Council informed of any movement towards annexation that occurred in the Country Club area. He observed that it was odd that that area, City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 May 22, 2001 which was the geographic center of Lake Oswego, was not part of the city. He indicated that, while he agreed with Councilor Rohde philosophically, he believed that the Birds Hill situation was not as visible as the Country Club/Knaus Road area. Mayor Hammerstad noted that she heard a majority consensus to continue with the Council annexation policy. She directed Ms. Heisler to look at the Country Club/Knaus Road area. She commented that she was reluctant because she wanted to get through the other important issues facing the Council this year and to build the Council's credibility. She held that they had much work to do to overcome the Council's reputation. She said she had no argument with the policy itself; her concern lay with the pragmatic consequences of enacting the policies at a time when she did not consider it the highest priority on their list. She spoke to setting the issue as a goal next year. Councilor Graham suggested tracking the cost of the benefits received by island residents and sharing that dollar amount with them. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that it was difficult to put a price on the amenities that made this a good place to live. Councilor Turchi suggested sending island residents a statement summarizing the dollar amount of city services that an island resident has received but not paid for, similar to the Social Security Administration's statement of earnings. Councilor Rohde spoke to using the value of the land, which has increased significantly because of its location next to Lake Oswego. He argued that nothing the residents did caused the increased land value; it came from the investment that Lake Oswego residents have made in their community. Councilor Schoen discussed his concern with leaving this issue with the feeling that they were backing off the policy that the Council originally established. He spoke to having the conviction to move forward, even if someone complained. He commented that, while he appreciated Councilor McPeak's comments, he did not think it was healthy for the Council to waffle on an established policy. He concurred that they did not have to do it tomorrow but indicated that he would like to keep it alive for the rest of the year. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that the Council was not backing off the policy. She said that she heard consensus for support of the policy. She clarified that her lack of enthusiasm did not mean that the Council would not move forward; it was good public policy; she simply had some reservations. Councilor McPeak commented that if the City could give a date certain on when the water line would be replaced, and thus remove a contentious element from the Stampher Road situation, she would feel happier about moving forward. 5.2 Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan Mayor Hammerstad commented that she thought that staff did a nice job on this plan, and thanked Ms. Heisler. She observed that many of the things that the Council had been concerned about, the staff was not concerned about. Ms. Heisler reviewed the staff report's answers to the Council's question from the April 10 meeting. She referenced the concern that providing services like tree cutting and home occupation administration enforcement would eliminate annexation incentives. She indicated that the main reason people annexed was for sewer. Ms. Heisler discussed different avenues for the annexation process, as noted in the staff report. She pointed out that Goal 2, which changed the Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) to require annexation for any kind of development beyond a single family dwelling on a parcel (regardless of who provided the sewer service), would bring in the sewered half of the neighborhood over time. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 May 22, 2001 Ms. Heisler discussed the impacts on the City of administering the tree cutting and home occupation permits (page 26). She mentioned that the fee roughly covered the administrative costs; the City could build in additional charges to cover enforcement costs. Ms. Heisler noted the process for plan adoption and implementation (page 22). She indicated that the neighborhood wanted to move forward with a package that included the neighborhood plan and the UGMA changes. She reported that the County staff, following a meeting with City staff and the neighbors, was not interested in adopting the plan as is; the County wanted to see more appraisal language. She stated that the County was clear that implementing something through the City and the County was beyond their ability to administer. She commented that the County was interested in working with the City to encourage annexation as in the best interests of the unincorporated community. Councilor Rohde asked if the County staff discussed this policy decision with the County Commissioners. Ms. Heisler said no. She mentioned that the neighborhood had expressed concern about that. She reported the County staff's statement that they would not hold a Planning Commission work session on the issue until they got more direction from the County Board. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that Mr. Schmitz was trying to set up a Tuesday morning meeting at the end of June. Ms. Heisler reviewed the location and formatting of the policies intended to apply upon annexation. She noted the policies that obligated the City to accomplish certain future tasks (Exhibit 4), the policies requiring UGMA changes, and the policies applicable to both jurisdictions. Mayor Hammerstad invited Ken Sandblast, Planning Commission Chair, and Cathy Schroyer, Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Chair, to make comments. Mr. Sandblast stated that the Planning Commission as a group supported the island annexation policy discussed by the Council earlier. He noted that it was not necessarily applicable to this plan, although it might become applicable because of the policies in the neighborhood plan that required annexation to get sewer or to develop. He indicated that the Commission's interest all along has been to insure that the City had land use control over design review and development in this area. He said that the plan would do what the Commission wanted it to do. He pointed out that they knew four years ago when they started the process, that dealing with two jurisdictions at the point of adoption would be cumbersome. Ms. Schroyer commented that this plan accomplished the Council's goals for the city, as discussed during the island annexation discussion, only using a different process because their neighborhood was not an island. She emphasized that they were trying to accomplish what the City wanted but without the neighborhood going up in arms. She argued that the inevitable, slow annexation of little pockets here and there would result in annexation of their neighborhood over time. She observed that the City might not want this neighborhood to annex right away because financially, it might not benefit the City. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the Council could not unilaterally adopt the plan without the County also adopting it. She asked how Ms. Schroyer thought the City should proceed. Ms. Schroyer held that the County Board would support this plan; it was the County staff who did not support it based on their `feeling' that the Board would not support it but not on an actual discussion with the Board. She stated that she told the County staff directly that she was not giving up because of a `feeling' staff had without actually meeting with the Commissioners. Ms. Schroyer recalled her conversation with the County Commissioners a year ago at a work session; except for one Commissioner, she had found them supportive of the concept. She said that she was working to get Michael Jordan and Bill Kennemer's support. She commented that the City Council enthusiastically supporting the plan increased the chances that the County Commissioners would do so also. She emphasized that she thought they could get the County Board to adopt the plan. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 May 22, 2001 Ms. Schroyer reviewed the process that the neighborhood association has used over the past five years to inform and educate the neighborhood with respect to the plan and annexation. She mentioned the small turnout(40 people) at a meeting on annexation, which she had thought would bring in 300 people. Councilor Rohde asked if it hurt the implementation of the plan to put the question of annexation on the November ballot. Ms. Schroyer said that she did not know if it hurt but she did not think that it helped the plan. Mr. Sandblast pointed out that if the Council adopted the plan, then a natural step was to ask about annexation; if the Council asked the annexation question before adopting the plan, and made adoption of the plan contingent upon that question, then it ran the risk of political fallout and potential ill will. Ms. Schroyer concurred that it would be nice if the neighborhood simply voted to annex and they did not have to go through the work of changing the UGMA and getting the County Commissioners' support. She argued that adopting the plan before a vote was a safety net, should an annexation vote be no. Councilor Rohde mentioned his concern that if the Council did not adopt the plan(thus implementing the protections prior to the vote), and the vote was no, then the County would refuse to adopt the plan because of the no vote; the City then lost both the protections and the annexation. Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Ms. Schroyer that November might be too soon for a vote. She commented that they needed to clarify with the County Commissioners if the neighborhood plan would still be in place in the event of a no vote. She spoke of a dual process: both jurisdictions adopting the plan and changing the UGMA followed by a public relations/education campaign in the neighborhood to obtain a yes vote. Ms. Schroyer commented that seeing the Lake Forest neighborhood work with the City on this plan would give the other unincorporated areas an example of a successful cooperative effort between the City and an unincorporated area. She mentioned receiving phone calls from other areas wondering why Lake Forest was trusting the City to do this plan. Mr. Sandblast commented that, given the attitude of the unincorporated areas towards the City over the last 50 years, six months or a year was a drop in the bucket in terms of time. He described this as a dry run through the system. He argued that a successful effort provided policy leadership to the other areas headed in the same direction. Councilor Rohde asked if the annexation vote fell under the double majority rule. Mr. Powell said that he would double check, although he did not think it did because it did not involve increasing the City's tax rate; it simply included more people paying the existing tax rate. Councilor Turchi asked if there was any existing City service, which the neighborhood currently did not have and would receive upon annexation, that could serve as an incentive to vote for annexation. Ms. Schroyer indicated that they have been trying to think of something; people did not want sewer, they already had police and fire protection, and they paid for the schools. She spoke of the intangible of preserving the community look of Lake Oswego, as opposed to becoming like Beaverton. She concurred with Councilor Turchi that a big commercial development in the area would provide incentive for annexation. Ms. Schroyer asked for more information on the phasing in of taxes over 10 years, as that would be an incentive. Mr. Powell said that the City had the authority to do so upon annexation, if it wished. Mr. Powell confirmed to Mr. Sandblast that the annexation vote could be of the area to be annexed and the city or only of the area to be annexed. Mr. Sandblast commented that each method had its own set of pros and cons. He noted that, given the 50%majority vote required, the City might have better luck with an area only vote, although that ran the risk of a potentially high no vote. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 May 22, 2001 Mayor Hammerstad spoke to putting this issue on a process timeline designed towards the goal of adopting the plan and annexing the area. She observed that this neighborhood plan was consistent with the other neighborhood plans; the only unusual item was the dual jurisdiction. She noted that the next step in dealing with that was a meeting with the County Commissioners and learning what they were or were not willing to do. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that next step, if the County did not agree, as identifying what the City could unilaterally adopt, followed by a public education process to inform the neighborhood of the services available and what annexation actually meant. Councilor Graham spoke to developing this process carefully, as it could serve as a template for other annexation considerations. Ms. Schroyer noted that this was not an island annexation, and therefore different in process. The Council agreed by consensus with the Mayor's suggestion that she write a letter to the County Commissioners and send them the plan. 5.3 Request to add member to Infill Development Ad Hoc Task Force Mr. Schmitz presented the Task Force's request to add a realtor to the committee, as they thought doing so would enhance their operations. He said that if the Council approved, staff would contact realtors and bring back a name for Council confirmation. The Council agreed by consensus. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 8:45 a.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d), for deliberations with persons designated to conduct labor negotiations. 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the open session at 9:27 a.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:27 a.m. Respectfully submitted, zi )ao,t-4 ; Robyn CHristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON July 3, 20 / of udie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 May 22, 2001