Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-07-23 Specialpi LAKE pfwfCO i �wEcoM -------1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 23, 2002 Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council special meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on July 23, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Hoffman, McPeak and Rohde. Councilors Schoen and Graham were excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff, Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director Guests: Dana Garretson, Nick Wilson and John Wagner of Atlas Landscaping; Stephanie Wagner, Marcia Robertson and Sue Remkeit, Cary Strauch, Steve Dodds, PRAB 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 George Roger's Park Master Plan Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director, introduced Dana Garretson, Atlas Landscaping Architecture, who worked on the consulting team that developed the master plan. Ms. Garretson introduced Nick Wilson and John Warner, also from Atlas Landscaping. Ms. Garretson gave a PowerPoint presentation. She reviewed the consultant team, which was composed of architects, natural resource specialists, historians and traffic engineers. She mentioned that they started the process in October 2001, beginning with laying the planning groundwork. Ms Garretson described the site inventory analysis, in which the team assessed the existing conditions at the park. She mentioned the series of public involvement meetings involving previously identified stakeholders. She spoke of their work in looking at the regional perspective, and the park's connection to the Willamette Greenway. She said that they presented a summary of their research and analysis at a community workshop. Ms. Garretson said that they developed three alternatives in the master plan, as a means of exploring transportation and land use within the park and their interrelationship. She commented that, although the team had not intended that any of the concepts would be universally accepted, the fact was that they did not get consensus on anything from anybody. Ms. Garretson reviewed the preferred plan, which the team developed out of the concepts. She noted that they structured it for implementation in numerous phases over the next 10 years as a long-term vision towards which the City could work. She spoke to the importance of maintaining the mixed-use nature of George Rogers Park, which had a well -used variety of both active and passive uses. She mentioned looking for opportunities for historical and natural resources interpretation, given the unique nature of the site in the history of Lake Oswego and its location on Oswego Creek and the Willamette River. Ms. Garretson reviewed the master plan objectives, which the team developed through the focus group interviews and the concept development process. She mentioned maintaining the popular park activities, solving the overuse of Ladd Street by park visitors, providing access for the elderly, canoers and kayakers to the lower part of the park, improving the ball fields and retaining the children's play area. City Council Minutes Page 1 of 15 July 23, 2002 Ms. Garretson noted that the master plan emphasized the existing uses, expanded the Sister City garden and enhanced the natural resource area at Oswego Creek. She described the main structure of the park, which was based on the traffic circulation of State Street, Ladd Street, Green Street and a loop connecting Green Street and Ladd Street. She noted that currently the traffic circulation used Furnace Street but the plan moved Furnace Street to open up a wider expanse of recreation areas. She pointed out the enhanced pedestrian entryways into the park. Ms. Garretson discussed their use of a successful model from Seattle for the Green Street improvements, which would also improve the Ladd Street situation. She described Green Street as a 14 -foot wide curvilinear road with no curbs. She mentioned that the concept received overwhelming support from the neighborhood, which was excited about its potential. Ms. Garretson reviewed the athletic field improvements. She pointed out that, while the plan maintained the two existing Little League ball fields, it relocated the one full-size ball field towards Green Street and away from Ladd Street. She described how the ball fields were more accessible from Green Street than from Ladd Street, with all of the parking now off of Green Street. Ms. Garretson noted the relocation of the tennis courts to take advantage of the 5% grade, and the location of the maintenance facility underneath one of the courts. She indicated that the expanded parking on Green Street met the current existing parking ratio, which was more than adequate for the normal activity levels in the park. She mentioned the pervious paving improving the southern half of Green Street, and the retaining walls created in order to maximize the available parking. Ms. Garretson noted that, although the plan left the children's play area in its current location, it did expand it to include part of the existing tennis court site. She described the intent to replace the equipment as it phased out near the end of the 10 years, and to take advantage of the historic and natural resource characteristics of the park in the new playground facility. She mentioned the interest in developing `artful interpretation' in the buildings and areas of the park. Ms. Garretson pointed out that the new program facility requested by the Parks & Recreation Department to handle its summer programs also doubled as gallery space during the Festival and art shows. She mentioned the associated restroom facility and potential concessionaire. Ms. Garretson commented that park circulation was a significant issue at all the public involvement meetings. She said that the people wanted paths that actually connected the various park elements so that one could circulate throughout the entire park. She noted the team's concerted effort to design different routes throughout the park. Ms. Garretson described how they expanded the Sister City garden by moving Furnace Street. She noted the water quality swale in the Sister City garden to handle the surface water runoff from Ladd Street. She mentioned the picnic tables on the swale and the new picnic pavilion that overlooked the river. Ms. Garretson recalled that they did considerable research on the history of the Memorial Garden. She indicated that the plan called for opening up the garden, clearing out the overgrown vegetation and restoring the river connection. She described how removing the Memorial Garden parking area allowed an expansion of the garden and provided more room for the smelter at its current location. Ms. Garretson mentioned their intent to restore the stone grills on the barbeque terrace, and the new large picnic shelter facility (seating 150) situated towards the river and the smelter. She discussed the improved public access to the river, and the path below the Memorial Garden, which terminated in a landing for canoe and kayak launches (as well as for the City emergency service). Ms. Garretson discussed the restoration of the natural area, including a loop trail, an added extension bridge crossing next to the powerhouse, and a nature interpretive center. She observed City Council Minutes Page 2 of 15 July 23, 2002 that the Willamette River Greenway trail was an integral component of the park and its relationship to the regional trail system. She noted that, although the greenway trail did not extend through the park to connect with the north trail, the potential existed for it to do so. Ms. Garretson reviewed the 10 phases for the park improvements. She commented that they saw the first phase, the Ladd Street improvements, as the biggest change needed to improve the relationship of the park with the neighborhoods in terms of traffic circulation and storm water management. Ms. Garretson mentioned that the athletic fields improvements came after the Ladd Street improvements because the Ladd Street improvements addressed the athletic field drainage issues. She spoke of the third phase (tennis courts, maintenance facility, Green Street loop), the fourth phase of the Green Street improvements to provide all the park parking, and the fifth phase of all the projects requiring Corps of Engineers or DSL permits. Ms. Garretson commented that they proposed one concerted phase for restoring the natural area (sixth phase) because if they did it in bits and pieces over several years, the ivy would simply grow back and they would have to start all over again. She mentioned the seventh phase (expanding the Sister City garden and connecting it to the concert lawn), the eighth phase (restoring the memorial gardens), the ninth phase (the program facility improvements) and the tenth phase of the children's play area. Ms. Garretson indicated that they estimated the total cost for all 10 phases at $5,911,861. Mayor Hammerstad invited the PRAB to comment. Cary Strauch described the plan development process as impressive in the team's organized method of gathering information and using the feedback. She said that PRAB reviewed the various proposals and agreed that this final plan was the best of all the plans. She recalled that PRAB did have a concern about the safety at the restrooms, and suggested a crosswalk for the kids coming from the ball fields. Ms. Garretson indicated to Councilor Turchi that the plan allowed two Little League games to occur simultaneously on the two ball fields, and maintained the current practice of only one game on the full-sized softball field. She noted the removal of the soccer field, which the public preferred over removing a baseball field. Ms. Garretson indicated to Councilor Turchi that the plan maintained the same number of parking spaces currently at the park. She commented that they were not making any promises to increase parking because of issues, such as saving trees on Green Street and the number of handicapped accessible parking spaces. Councilor Turchi asked if the plan called for refurbishing the boat ramp. Ms. Garretson pointed out that the improvements were not for the motorboat launch but for the canoers and kayakers. She described the accessible 10 -foot wide pathway down to the river launching place, which did not look like a boat launch because one had to use part of the bridge to get down into the water. Councilor Turchi asked if connecting the beach to the north pathway or building a floating dock on the river were possibilities. Ms. Garretson said that that had been a contentious issue during the public process with property owners not wanting the City to cross their land. She reported that Parks & Recreation promised that the City would not circumvent the private lands at this point. She noted that the master plan did include connections over its 10 -year phase-in. Ms. Garretson indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the new suspension bridge was for the existing maintenance road going down towards the powerhouse. She mentioned the concerns of the Lake Corporation about allowing the public near those buildings. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the master plan had many interesting features in it. She noted that the phasing in of the smaller pieces over time allowed the City the opportunity to City Council Minutes Page 3 of 15 July 23, 2002 figure out how to pay for it. She pointed out that, although some have said that George Rogers Park as it existed today was not that bad, the difference between the existing conditions and the proposed master plan improvements presented the opportunity to create something that would last 50 years and be of great service to the community. Councilor McPeak asked at what point did the consultants address the operations and maintenance side of the park. Ms. Garretson said that they tried to address that side throughout the entire process by involving operations and maintenance staff in the initial discussion and the plan development. She indicated that the maintenance staff was happy to stay in the park, as it was a good central location for serving the whole district. Councilor McPeak clarified that her question spoke to the cost of operations and maintenance. She asked what the difference would be between the City's costs to maintain George Rogers Park now and its costs to maintain the park following implementation of the master plan. Ms. Gilmer said that they did not analyze the cost element but the fact that they did not add any new acreage but rather rearranged the park elements and maintained the status quo meant that it should have little cost impact. She acknowledged the added cost to trail maintenance with the new trails and restoration of the natural area but held that that would be a minimal cost increase. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor McPeak that she preferred talking to the Parks Superintendent before speculating on any cost increases. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Sue Remkeit, PRAB, that they could use volunteer efforts, especially in the natural areas. She mentioned that currently they had a worker in the park for eight hours a day. She said that she thought they could maintain the master plan park with the same staffing level. Councilor McPeak commented that she hoped for better maintenance, as she felt that George Rogers Park would be in a more attractive condition today if the City had spent more money on it. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the improvements in storm water management with the Green Street approach would alleviate many problems and potentially cut down on expenditures from the surface water management fund. Ms. Gilmer concurred, as many of the time intensive maintenance issues now revolved around the drainage issues and the lack of a pathway system to funnel people through the park. Councilor Hoffman asked what the plan was to restore the view of the river at the Memorial Garden. Ms. Gilmer conceded that they would probably have to cut down some of the rhodies and remove some of the non-native plant material. She said that they would first talk to the garden clubs and others who originally planted the garden but the intent was to remove some of the old plants, restore the river view and plant native species. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Hoffman that they believed, from their discussions with TSAC and the Parks & Recreation programming staff, that those groups did not have a problem with the removal of the adult soccer field. Ms. Garretson noted that it was not a full sized field today, and they could not improve it without giving up something else. Ms. Gilmer said that kids could still use the soccer field overlay for practices. Councilor Hoffman recalled that soccer started in Lake Oswego on that field. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the opportunities for interpretation, including the archaeological sites, were an enhancement to the park. Ms. Garretson noted that there were opportunities for federal funding if the City wanted to pursue creating an historic -natural site. She indicated that the public had demonstrated a fairly strong interest in that idea. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the City could not use SDCs to pay for something like that. Mayor Hammerstad opened the floor to public testimony. • Janet Banks, 425 Furnace Street City Council Minutes Page 4 of 15 July 23, 2002 Ms. Banks argued that closing Furnace Street to create a wider Sister City garden meant that cars going partway down Furnace would come back up through the neighborhood to get out of the area. She said that that was a concern to the neighbors, who have worked for some time to prevent cars from coming through the neighborhood as they left the park. Ms. Garretson clarified that the plan ended Furnace Street, while providing access to the residences immediately north of the park where it tapered at Ladd Street into a private driveway. She indicated that signs would clearly direct cars coming down Furnace Street to turn on to Ladd Street to get back to State Street or to take the Green Street loop down into the park. She noted that the plan removed the park parking on Ladd Street. Ms. Banks mentioned that the new picnic pavilion in the Sister City garden close to the edge of the cliff was unfortunately placed immediately adjacent to a residential house. She spoke of the noisy picnics that occurred at the park, which were tolerable now because the picnic facilities were not right next to a house. She argued that this was not a good situation for the neighbors. • Val Subola, 143 Ladd Street Ms. Subola mentioned that she planted a hedge in front of her house in order to stop park visitors from turning around in her yard. She noted that park visitors now turned around in the yard of her next-door neighbors, instead of going 30 feet down the street to Furnace Street to get out. Ms. Subola indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the lack of additional parking on Green Street would make the situation worse, in that it would back traffic up into the neighborhood. She spoke in support of additional parking. She mentioned the neighbors' suggestion to turn the driveway facing State Street into an access road for the park, as opposed to people using Furnace and Ladd Streets. Ms. Subola commented that the park visitors parked in front of their home and took up all the parking on Ladd Street, which forced them to park on the park side. Ms. Garretson reiterated that the plan called for greatly expanding the Green Street parking in order to accommodate all the parking for the park. She noted that this included removing the Memorial Garden parking lot and the parking on Ladd Street on the south side of the park. She mentioned that they created tremendous barriers to get into the park from Ladd Street, other than the defined access ways. Ms. Garretson indicated to Ms. Subola that the expanded Green Street parking provided the same number of parking spaces currently available for the park at the various parking areas, including Ladd Street, the Memorial Garden and Green Street. She emphasized that the plan relocated the parking away from Ladd Street to Green Street. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that the team worked hard at trying to figure out a way to make the Green Street and State Street area the main entrance to the park, in order to reduce the traffic on Ladd Street, but the State would not allow them to do that. She commented that the new Ladd Street design with the traffic -slowing curve and the removal of parking should help alleviate some of the problems. Ms. Subola commented that her biggest concern was the number of near misses she saw of cars almost hitting children jumping out of the cars parked on Ladd Street. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the consultant team worked to address that problem. • Paul Subola, 143 Ladd Street Mr. Subola asked for clarification on the removal of the Ladd Street parking spaces. Ms. Garretson explained that the team counted all the parking spaces on both sides of Ladd Street, and then considered the parking spaces on the south side as potential park parking. She said that they relocated those south side parking spaces to Green Street while leaving the north side parking spaces available for the residents. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 15 July 23, 2002 Mr. Subola asked how the plan, since it removed the Ladd Street parking and did not move the children's playground, would accommodate the mothers with young children and dogs who would have a more difficult time getting to the playground. He mentioned the lack of parental supervision of the children at the playground during ballgames. Ms. Garretson reported that they learned in the public meetings that the athletic fields and the children's play areas were separate destination uses with little overlapping. She noted that the Green Street improvements included accessible pathways to all the park areas from the parking, and a fairly short route to get to the children's play area. She mentioned the potential for four parking spaces immediately adjacent to the children's play area but that would shake out during the public involvement process for the Green Street improvements. Mr. Subola alleged that the team ignored the neighborhood's suggestion to relocate the children's playground to a better parking facility. He indicated that the neighbors across the street saw this as an important issue because of the hazards to the children. Ms. Garretson said that the team looked at relocating the children's play area in the three concept alternatives but heard a resounding no from the public; it liked the play area where it was. She noted that, with its closeness to the neighborhood, the neighbors could watch their children from their windows. • Robert Montgomery, 123 Ladd Mr. Montgomery asked if the plan included a restroom in the concession stand building. Ms. Garretson said that the description of the athletic fields did include an opportunity to build a single occupancy restroom in the concession facility, which would only be open during an athletic field event. • Taisala Subola, 143 Ladd Ms. Subola referenced page 35, number 13, which mentioned the accessible parking area. She asked if there was concern that this might become a turn around area, instead of people following the loop. Ms. Garretson discussed the concern with removing the Memorial Garden parking area and providing access for elderly walkers and canoers and kayakers. She said that they included a short segment of roadway, which used grass paving so that it did not look like a regular roadway, to provide access to four parking spaces located down at the foot of the River Road Bridge, adjacent to the restroom. She noted that two of the spaces were designated for accessible parking while the other two were for canoer/kayaker use. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that there was a way to turn a car or fire truck around in the parking area so that vehicles could come back up the road, which reduced congestion. Mayor Hammerstad noted that it was not so convenient that people would use it as an alternative. Councilor Rohde asked why not. Ms. Gilmer said that they wanted to take out the larger parking lot down there. Ms. Garretson recalled the several concerns regarding removal of the Memorial Garden parking area, which included the runoff from the parking lot currently going into Oswego Creek untreated, and the desire to open up the garden and to provide more space for the smelter. She noted that the pervious paving allowed someone to get down to the accessible area but it was not apparent to the regular traffic. She mentioned regulating the parking with handicapped stickers. Councilor Rohde questioned why the team did not put 20 parking spaces down there using pervious paving, or put in a detention pond. He said that one of his biggest objections he had was that he knew where this would end with respect to the grade. He argued that it began to discourage people from using the lower end of the park. Ms. Garretson pointed out that those sorts of things took up a lot of space in a park with many terraces and flat space at a premium. She said that the flat area of the Memorial Garden was one of the hottest spots in the park next to the athletic fields, which the team felt was better used for City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 July 23, 2002 recreation than parking. She commented that, with the re -grading of the path circulation system, they created an extensive and easily accessible pathway system that tied the park together. Councilor Rohde commented that the current park developed in a haphazard fashion, with the City building various elements as it had the money. He said that one of the nice things about the park today was the good number of parking spaces directly associated with the various elements. He argued that consolidating the parking into one area discouraged the use of the various park elements, especially the Memorial Garden. He indicated that he could see people finding creative parking solutions to accessing the children's play area. He described putting the parking all on one street, when they could fit more parking spaces down by the Memorial Garden, as a mistake. Ms. Garretson indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the standard for how far people would walk for park activities was a three to five minute walk. She said that they estimated the walk to the Memorial Garden from the parking area, using the accessible pathways, at less than five minutes, depending on how fast one walked. She held that the linearity of Green Street provided good access to many of the features. She conceded that there were some grade issues in getting up to the children's play area and down to the lower beach access. Ms. Garretson confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the reason they recommended eliminating the Memorial Garden parking lot was to use the flat ground for recreation, as opposed to using it for "four wheeled monsters." Ms. Strauch mentioned that she frequently used the Memorial Garden parking area to park her car while walking her dog. She commented that the people who used those areas engaged in active recreation, such as walking the dog or bike riding. She held that increasing the walk to a given area by two minutes would not reduce the usage. Ms. Banks mentioned a concern that removing the lower parking lot took away the trailhead for the Old River Road pathway. Ms. Garretson said that they asked at a regional meeting whether George Rogers was a destination trailhead for the Willamette Greenway and the regional trail system, and heard that it was not. She indicated that the users preferred Tryon Creek or one of the bigger parks more conducive to parking and packing. Ms. Garretson indicated to Councilor Rohde that they arrived at that conclusion by interviewing the Metro Regional Greenspaces staff, the Three Rivers Trails Conservancy, the Parks & Recreation Department and other Lake Oswego groups. She mentioned the focus group discussion of how George Rogers Park fit into the regional parks and recreation system. She reiterated that they came to the consensus that George Rogers Park was a destination community use, and not a regional destination. Councilor Rohde commented that it surprised him to hear that all the people he saw driving to the park, unloading their bikes and taking off down the trails were community people. Ms. Garretson said that they did not conduct any surveys but that was the consensus of parks directors and greenspaces officials. Ms. Val Subola mentioned that, in the 16 years she has lived next to the park and used it heavily, she has talked to many people. She indicated that half of those with whom she spoke were from out of town, and had discovered the park as a place to come. Ms. Banks suggested that the covered bridge over the creek depart from the historical design for covered bridges by including window openings in the side. She cited the safety concerns of an enclosed space where someone could hide. Ms. Garretson indicated that the team recommended covering the Old River Road bridge to reflect the historic condition but did not make any design recommendations. Mr. Subola asked if the fill gained from lowering the ball field by two and a half feet to meet the level of Green Street could be used to extend the parking on Green Street. Ms. Garretson City Council Minutes Page 7 of 15 July 23, 2002 indicated that that was a good idea, as the potential to do so did exist, but it depended on how fast the City implemented the plan. Ms. Garretson indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the team anticipated that each phase would be its own development project with its own design refinements and public involvement process, as this master plan was simply a broad brush of the possibilities. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the master plan would come to the Council on September 17 for a formal public hearing. She explained that the purpose of tonight's meeting was for the Council to hear concerns and to familiarize itself with the master plan prior to the public hearing. She commented that the Council would likely accept the plan but not adopt it, as the City had no funding to implement it at this time. 3.2 Possible Open Space/Parks Bond Measure Mayor Hammerstad noted that the Council needed to decide at its first meeting in August whether it wanted to put an open space/parks bond measure on the ballot for the November election. She commented that the City tried to maximize the dollars of the last open space bond measure in acquiring properties, and was pleased with what it was able to accomplish. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that, as the Council acquired properties, other unexpected opportunities came to them. She noted in particular Portland's offer to sell Lake Oswego 4.5 acres of the 9 -acre chip plant site while allowing Lake Oswego to develop the entire 9 -acre site. She commented that the Council understood that this might not be the most important thing to do, given the current funding problems at various agencies, but it knew that if it did not take advantage of this `window in time' now, the opportunity would vanish. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the need for a facilities bond would not change or go away, and therefore, the Council had time to do that. She cited the upcoming urban growth boundary (UGB) decision as a reason for purchasing land in the Stafford area at this time. She commented that, although there was a good chance that Metro would not expand the UGB in the Stafford area this time, it would do so eventually, which meant that now was the time to purchase more park land and open space in that area. Mayor Hammerstad argued that there was no down side to putting this on the ballot: if the Council did not put it on, then the City did not have the money or if the measure went down, then the City did not have the money. She emphasized that if the Council put it on the ballot and it passed, then the City had this opportunity. Mayor Hammerstad reported that the Council subcommittee (Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman and Graham) met yesterday and discussed a measure for around $9.5 million, which identified open space acquisition, parks development and pathways and trails as the principal elements. She commented that if PRAB did not support the bond, then the question was moot. Mayor Hammerstad clarified to Ms. Wagner that the Council's intent was to allocate $2 million to park development of projects already identified, including the chip plant. She explained that the Council also wanted to purchase parkland for potential development, which it could not do if it designated the money solely for open space acquisition. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Ms. Wagner that the City hoped that the appraisal price was such that the City could afford to purchase the chip plan with the remainder of the current open space bond. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the City could not develop it. Ms. Wagner presented the views of PRAB. She commented that the CIP established how the community wanted things developed through the City. She pointed out that the Council was now talking about new projects, which have not been master planned, such as the Marina Park/chip plant. She questioned asking for improvement money for something that the City has not yet finished thinking about. City Council Minutes Page 8 of 15 July 23, 2002 Ms. Wagner agreed that they needed to look at how that land could be used, as it had possibilities. She argued that this involved a bigger picture issue than sticking $1.2 million in a bond issue for the chip plant, in that they were looking at the George Rogers Park master plan. She spoke to sticking with projects already identified in the CIP as good projects. Mr. Schmitz mentioned the four currently unfunded projects in the CIP: Woodmont, Glenmorrie Park, neighborhood playground replacement and Pilkington Park. He explained that the Council, on its tour of the chip plant last month, thought to do minimal improvements after the acquisition in order to facilitate people getting down to use the site and to become familiar with it, and then developing a permanent master plan. He described the minimal improvements as extending the pathway, providing restrooms and installing irrigation for the grass. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor McPeak that he put in a high figure of $1.2 million because he did not know the number and he did not want to put the City in a position of not asking for enough money. He pointed out that they could allocate any money left over to other park development projects. Councilor Hoffman indicated to Ms. Wagner that he was not wedded to the master plan process, as she described it, because master plans tended to sit on the shelf, such as the Luscher Farm master plan. He conceded that the reason they did not do the Luscher Farm master plan was because the property lay outside the UGB. Councilor Hoffman observed that if PRAB's concern was that the City needed to have a master plan first, then it would not want to include the chip plant in the bond. He indicated that they could either allocate $8.5 million for open space or allocate the $1.2 million towards George Rogers Park as opposed to the chip plant. He said that while he liked George Rogers, Woodmont and the other projects, he saw the chip plant as akin to Millennium Plaza, in that it fit into the grand vision of connecting the downtown to the river. Ms. Wagner commented that she thought the whole plan was good but she was focusing on this one bond issue for money that the City would spend over a fairly short period of time. She reiterated that they had established master plans, such as for Canal Acres and George Rogers Park, which would give good benefit to the community if implemented. Ms. Wagner indicated that she would take some convincing that this bond issue for a temporary improvement to the chip plant was where the City should be putting its money, when it could implement two to three phases of the George Rogers Park master plan for the same amount of money. Steve Dodds, PRAB, referenced the Mayor's comment that there was no downside to putting this on the ballot and having it turned down. He pointed out that, given the numerous possible park projects, the Council could do a park bond issue every two years, which could build up. He described this as similar to Tom Lowrey's idea of a community center, in that there was no plan for how to accomplish the objective. Councilor McPeak commented that, given the fast deadline, she would not be satisfied within the time available, that the Council could adequately assess the specifics on the list. She asked how much detail did they have to commit to for the bond dollar amount. Mr. Powell indicated that legally, they did not have to commit to much detail. Mr. Powell commented that it was a good idea to have a general measure, similar to how they wrote the last open space and field renovation bond. He said that they could be more specific about projects in the explanatory statement in order to inform the citizens of the kinds of things that the Council was philosophically committed to for the use of the funds. Mr. Powell noted that the problem with being extremely specific in the measure itself was the inherent problem of not being able to use the money earmarked for something in particular, when unforeseen circumstances prevented its use for that purpose. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 15 July 23, 2002 Councilor McPeak commented that she would be more at ease with her input on what to do with the money if the Council had more time to prioritize projects. She indicated that, while she preferred less detail (unless it killed its chances of passing), she did not like the list. Councilor Rohde commented that he has not heard an answer to the fundamental question of should the Council put a bond measure on the ballot in November. He concurred that the Council could put a ballot measure on every two years at the general election, which would avoid the double majority requirement and the cost to the City for a special election. Councilor Hoffman recalled that this bond was driven originally by open space. He asked if PRAB would be more comfortable if the Council spent the money on open space and did not include parks development. Cary Strauch, PRAB, commented that now that she has seen this information, she understood the urgency of the bond measure and acquiring the chip plant. She indicated that she was confused about the priorities. She mentioned the CIP projects, the George Rogers Park master plan, the upcoming Foothills plan and the idea of a huge community center. Councilor Hoffman suggested taking the parks component out in order to answer Councilor Rohde's question. He commented that the Council wanted to get land in the Stafford area now, when it was less expensive, than later after it came inside the UGB. He mentioned working on West End opportunities also. Marcia Robertson, PRAB, asked how could she, as a member of a committee to pass this bond measure, convince the citizens of Lake Oswego to spend their property tax dollars to buy property out in the Stafford area. She held that that would be a difficult sell. Mr. Dodds indicated that the questions he would ask, with respect to the Council wanting to put out a bond measure, were why and what, which the Council needed to answer. He commented that he personally did not find buying generic open space outside in the Stafford area an exciting prospect. Councilor McPeak argued that it would be easier to convince voters to vote for the bond measure if the Council offered a combination of parks development and open space, and split the total amount between the two. She spoke to having examples ready of how it would benefit the citizens of Lake Oswego. She noted that the last open space/fields bond measure did not have specifics either. She held that they could work out the specific projects but both open space and parks development would benefit the people. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that the last bond measure itself was generic in simply referencing open space and fields. She noted that the publicity during the campaign was more definitive. She indicated that if the Council decided to follow the same strategy of a generic measure, then it still had time to decide on exactly what it wanted to advertise in the publicity. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that the chip plant was not on any master plan or priority list, as the City never knew it would have the opportunity to acquire it. She pointed out that if they pursued this opportunity for 9 acres on the Willamette River, but only bought the chip plant and left it that way, then it availed them nothing. She argued that they needed to develop the property with grass and restrooms at a minimum in order to use it for community use and access to the river. Ms. Wagner argued that this was not the last bond issue that the City would pass. She spoke to going out in two years with the chip plant as the focus because it would take two years to make anything happen on the property anyway. She emphasized that the City did have other park projects. She concurred that the Council needed to include parks improvements if it intended to sell the measure to the community; it would not work with open space only. Mr. Schmitz referenced the Council's adoption of the Open Space Master Plan in March 2001, which contained two ingredients relating to this discussion. He said that the plan did speak of City Council Minutes Page 10 of 15 July 23, 2002 acquiring the chip plant (page 60) and improving the public access to the riverfront. He explained that it was not in the CIP because they have not updated the CIP since the adoption of the Open Space Master Plan. Mr. Schmitz noted the extended section in the Open Space Master Plan on heritage landscaping, which talked about the Stafford area and the preservation of the heritage landscape of open space in that region. He indicated that the Council's adoption of the Open Space Master Plan last year addressed that part of the equation from an open space perspective, which was different from a parks and recreation perspective. Councilor Turchi commented that he perceived that many citizens wanted the Council to do this. He mentioned areas in the community set aside over the years in order to maintain the community character, such as the Iron Mountain Boulevard corridor and Waluga Park. He argued that what the Council was asking for was the funding that would allow it to identify these areas as they came up, and to put them in a reserve for future development so that they were not lost forever. Councilor Turchi recalled that some years ago, a property owner offered to sell the acreage of the Village by the Lake to the Council for $1 million, which the Council at that time turned down. He commented that it could have been a remarkable natural place with access to the lake for the public. Councilor Turchi said that this Council wanted the opportunity to be able to choose to do some of these things. He described the chip plant as a unique opportunity, which worked with George Rogers Park in connecting with the riverfront and the pathway system. He held that he thought that they could convince the community that this was a good thing to do. Councilor Turchi recalled that, in his work for another public agency, he had always felt uncomfortable when he came to a meeting and the agency asked him to sign off on something with a five minute discussion. He indicated that the Council has been thinking about this for a long time. He asked if there was anything that the Council could do to help PRAB feel more comfortable with the bond measure, as it was important for the city's growth and development as a community. Ms. Wagner concurred that the chip plant was important but reiterated that she hated to see the City lose the opportunity to follow through and develop some of the other park commitments it made to the community. She said that she was not saying that they should not acquire the chip plant for future development. She argued that they had a responsibility to the community to develop some of these other parklands, which the community has been involved in making master plans for. Ms. Wagner said that that was her concern as a PRAB member who listened to people come to the Board asking why the City was not following through on its plans. She described this as an opportunity for some of that to happen, and here they were off on a new project. She reiterated that they could acquire the land now and be ready in two years to develop it. Mayor Hammerstad argued that they had around $1 million in the bond to do the park development projects, including Glenmorrie and perhaps Woodmont. She commented that they probably wanted to reprioritize the park development projects, depending on what people today saw as the most valuable projects. Ms. Wagner indicated to Councilor Rohde that she had no problem with the Council putting a bond measure on the ballot. She said that her concern was how the Council intended to sell it. She commented that PRAB was not saying that this was a bad idea but rather that there was an issue with it. Councilor Rohde expressed his surprise at PRAB's reticence about asking the voters for money to do some of the park projects that it has been thinking for a long time that it would like done in Lake Oswego. Ms. Wagner pointed out that the amount of money allocated to parks City Council Minutes Page 11 of 15 July 23, 2002 development was insufficient to do the things that they have been thinking about. She observed that this was the first time that the Board has seen this Council idea. She reiterated that PRAB would support the bond measure if it were for things that it felt it could support. Ms. Wagner indicated that she would also support open space acquisition, which was NRAB's purview, especially if the City could develop some of the properties as parks in the future. She reiterated the need to be careful on how the Council was going to sell the open space part, given that PRAB would be the ones doing the campaign legwork. Ms. Wagner commented to Councilor Rohde that the $9.5 million amount did not bother her, as she thought that they could pass a higher amount than the Council thought it could pass. Ms. Strauch commented that it was important for the Board to be clear. She recalled that Ms. Gilmer told the Board at its meeting last week about this Council proposal but it has happened so fast that tonight was the first time that the Board has seen the proposed breakdown. She agreed with acquiring the chip plant if possible. She held that the voters needed some definite ideas on what the Council intended. She mentioned that she had friends who wanted to know where the athletic fields were that the City promised on its last bond measure. Ms. Strauch acknowledged Mayor Hammerstad's point that the City did have more athletic fields but noted that the people had expected to see them at Luscher Farm. She emphasized the importance of being very clear on what the intent of the bond was. Mr. Dodds asked if the subcommittee thought developing another artificial field and the Rassekh property was a good idea. Mayor Hammerstad noted that those projects were not on the list of park development projects. Mr. Dodds indicated that TSAC was sold on an artificial field for $800,000 and Rassekh for $1 million as a good idea. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the proposed allocation for Rassekh of $500,000. Mr. Dodds commented that there was $20 million needed to complete Luscher Farm and George Rogers Park. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the $14 million needed for Luscher Farm was not on the horizon because the property lay outside of the UGB. She commented that she hoped that it would not come in for at least five more years. Mr. Schmitz reported that a week ago Sunday, staff conducted a survey of the concert attendees with 100 responses returned. He said that 60% were strongly in favor of a $7.5 million bond for park & open space acquisition, park development and pathway/trails on the November 2002 election, 17% were somewhat in favor and 10 to 12% opposed. Councilor Rohde commented that they could structure the ballot title to state acquisition and parks development in general. He asked what their timeframe was to develop the specific project list to advertise with the bond. Mr. Powell said that he would double-check but the explanatory statement was due about three weeks after the ballot title deadline. Councilor Rohde spoke to selling the bond on the list of projects that the Council would like to do. He indicated that that would allow the Council to start ticking off some of those projects. He suggested putting the general measure on the ballot and seeing what happened. He commented that he thought they were over -thinking this a bit. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor McPeak that the last open space bond divided the total amount into $6 million for open space and $7 million for fields. He noted that the explanatory statement in the voters' pamphlet listed the kinds of projects that could be funded, including artificial fields. Ms. Wagner commented that the Council needed to keep in mind who would sell the bond measure. She recalled that, although there was always a good heart in the community towards open space, the team sports people worked for the fields and sold the idea of an artificial field, which was an important part of passing the bond. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 15 July 23, 2002 Mayor Hammerstad commented that every interest group from whom they received support was helpful. Councilor Hoffman referenced Mr. Dodds' question about Rassekh and the artificial fields. He said that the subcommittee did discuss those in yesterday's meeting. He indicated that his thought originally had been Stafford and open space, seeing if they could buy more land to preserve the natural areas. He explained that they then thought that a combination bond, similar to the 1998 athletic fields/open space bond, would have a better chance of passing. Councilor Hoffman indicated that he saw Rassekh and artificial fields as still on the table. He commented that nothing was `in or out,' rather it was a matter of putting together a package that people would buy. Councilor Hoffman summarized Ms. Wagner's comments as PRAB was not warm to the idea of the chip plant yet because of the George Rogers Park and Canal Acres master plans that the City had yet to implement. He commented that those two master plans were the priorities focused on by PRAB for the last two years. Councilor Hoffman recalled that the Council became excited about the possibilities at the chip plant during a tour of the property two months ago. He said that what he heard Ms. Wagner saying was that park development was okay but she was not certain that the chip plant should jump ahead of George Rogers Park. Ms. Wagner said that she would like to find ways to fund the projects already identified as important to the city, and to follow through on them. Councilor Hoffman commented that, from a City Council perspective, he might say now that Canal Acres and George Rogers Park had a lower priority than the chip plant because of the opportunities and the springboard effect. He confirmed to Ms. Wagner that the start of developing a park at the chip plant site would be leveling it out, putting grass down, installing restrooms and creating an access to the river. He indicated that they would master plan it after those improvements. Ms. Wagner commented that the issue was that they had only so much money to spend on park projects. She said that she thought a well-done park in the chip plant location was a good idea, which she supported. She reiterated that the question was how to prioritize the projects within this narrow time frame and to make sure that the City followed through on its other commitments to support recreational facilities in the city. Mr. Dodds discussed what the Council was selling: the development of the chip plant, the beginning phases of George Rogers Park and open space. He concurred that what the Council would do with the money was more of an issue than the amount of money for which it was asking. He held that people would agree with doing the George Rogers Master Plan, the chip plant, and Rassekh (which would be a start on Luscher Farm). He pointed out that if the Council publicized a project, then it needed to do something on that project. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Mr. Dodds that they might be able to do Rassekh for $500,000 if they did not have the signal costs in there. Councilor Hoffman asked if PRAB would feel comfortable with a package that included the chip plant/"Marina Park," George Rogers Park, Rassekh, an artificial field and open space. He mentioned talking to Gene Mildren about the City and team sports going 50/50 on an artificial field. PRAB indicated that it would feel more comfortable with that package. Councilor Hoffman spoke to having a process for prioritizing projects. He mentioned PRAB's concern about throwing $1 million at something that they have not planned. Ms. Wagner concurred. She mentioned the possibility of leveraging money with community involvement to make things happen. She referenced talk in the community of making the big Little League field in George Rogers Park into a memorial field. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15 July 23, 2002 PRAB indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that it did agree with moving forward with the bond measure. Ms. Wagner mentioned the possibility of leveraging public money with endowing conservation easements, something she has seen as a Board member on the Three Rivers Land Conservancy. She asked if this money could be used in that way or was it solely for acquisition. Mr. Powell indicated that he could word the ballot title to say acquisitions or acquisition of an interest in, if the Council so desired. Ms. Wagner argued that conservation easements would be useful, particularly for preserving the feeling of openness and large expanses of land in the Stafford Triangle. She observed that they were also much cheaper than buying land. Mayor Hammerstad commented that PRAB was a tougher audience than others because it was informed on the issue, had priorities to which it was committed and could ask the tough questions. Mayor Hammerstad said that the Council needed to decide at its first meeting in August whether to move forward with a bond and for what amount. She indicated that the subcommittee would recommend $9.5 million, which was less than the $10 million that the Council wanted to stay under but enough to make an impact. She spoke of Council working with PRAB to develop the materials and to identify the projects in such a way that the allocations did not tie the Council's hands and allowed it the act on opportunities as they arose. Ms. Wagner spoke to making sure that the Council was committed to making every effort to make any project on the list happen. She said that she did not want to hear about the swimming pool land acquisition again, a festering issue that has come back continually since 1990. She emphasized the importance of the Council having everything set up for the lists on the project, and needing only the money to make them happen. Councilor Hoffman asked if Ms. Wagner would feel comfortable if the Council developed a list of projects under parks development on which they could all agree, such as Rassekh, first phase of George Rogers, chip plant, pathways and artificial fields. Ms. Wagner indicated yes, they would. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated her caution that they did not want to put the Council in a situation where it has committed to something, and then a more encompassing opportunity arose of which it could not take advantage. She cited the Metro Greenspaces bond measure, which was successful and yet Metro had other opportunities that it could not buy because the properties were not on the list. Ms. Wagner said that her remarks were directed towards park development, as opposed to open space acquisition. She spoke of a list of the improvements that the Council was planning to spend money on. She held that the Council should be able to honor that list. Mr. Dodds compared it to a shopping list from which to choose park improvements. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council did try to go down the list of open space priorities developed by NRAB. She said that, while some were not available to the City, the Council did make a significant inroad on the priority list. She asked PRAB to send representatives to the August 5 meeting. She indicated to Ms. Wagner that either she or Mr. Schmitz would contact her and the Board about developing the list. Mayor Hammerstad clarified to Ms. Wagner that she did not mean for PRAB to bring recommendations to the Council in August. She said that the Council wanted PRAB to show its support for the Council putting this on the ballot, so that the public knew that PRAB did support the Council's action. Ms. Wagner indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the Board has not toured the chip plant. City Council Minutes Page 14 of 15 July 23, 2002 Ms. Wagner reiterated her frustration, given the lack of money, that the City kept developing plans for things and then never did anything about making them happen. She argued that if they had a list, they should check items off the list. She mentioned adding new items on the list as they came up. She stated that she felt strongly that this would be a good approach for the City to take instead of always going with a new idea. She conceded that open space acquisition involved taking advantage of an opportunity right now but contended that development came with planning and a more organized approach. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned development on the Jarvis property, which included stream restoration. She described the chip plant as a much better initial investment in terms of public use because, by getting people down to the river, it served as a catalyst for people thinking that the City ought to redevelop the Foothills area. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 5. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the special meeting at 6:25 p.m. Councilor Turchi moved to authorize the City Manager to consummate the purchase of the Elshire property for approximately $191,500. Councilor Rohde seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Hoffman, McPeak and Rohde voting `aye.' [6-0] 6. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON October 1, 2002 Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Minutes Page 15 of 15 July 23, 2002