Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-02-17 i LAKE `,00ask CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING iflp 1lb MINUTES February 17, 2009 �O Ewn/ Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. on February 17, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney Staff Present:Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Project Communications Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Director; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Environmental Planner Youth Council Pr sent: Youth Councilors Dod, Menashe, and Silbert 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award, Stephan Lashbrook Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, and thanked him for his service to the City since 2001. He mentioned that Mr. Lashbrook was one of three planners in the Metro region who were always included on regional task forces because of their expertise. He described Mr. Lashbrook as a problem solver, compassionate, and someone who paid attention to the individual. Mr. Lashbrook commented that it was an honor to work at Lake Oswego with its excellent staff. 3.2 Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Update (LOIS) Mayor Hoffman thanked Ms. Heisler for the tour of the staging areas on Saturday. Ms. Heisler informed the Councilors that staff would be happy to take any of them on a similar tour. Ms. Heisler presented the construction update. She described how the contractor on the Kelok project effectively handled the problem of finding more water in the trench than expected; the project was now back on track. She mentioned March 19 as the bid opening date for the lake full project phase with the contract award scheduled for April 7. She reported that staff met with the bond counsel. The City now had a schedule to follow to make sure that they sold bonds at the appropriate time. She indicated that staff was applying for funding through the appropriations process of the federal stimulus package in hopes of alleviating some of the ratepayer burden for this project. She reviewed the handout showing the reporting system that staff developed in response to Council questions and concerns. Mr. McIntyre clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the 'projected' line referred to the actual to date. Mr. Graham indicated that the 'planned' line should never change. Ms. Heisler reviewed another graph showing the Bryant Kelok financial pieces, including administration, design, construction management, and construction costs. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff determined the City administration costs for one phase, while working on different phases simultaneously, by proportioning out the staff time as best they could. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 February 17, 2009 She indicated to Councilor Olson that while the problems that Canby Excavating ran into did increase the cost, staff had no reason at this point to think that the project would go over the contingency amount allowed for the program. She indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff would provide Council with the total amount of the different pieces of the lake full work, and have the breakdown for the individual contractors available for those who wanted to see it. Councilor Tierney said that this reporting system worked for him, although he thought that the financial part still needed work to make it clear. He suggested showing what staff has spent to date and what staff projected to spend. Mr. McIntyre explained that staff was trying to find a meaningful way to show the Council whether the project was on target, not on target, or ahead of the target. He indicated that staff would continue to fine-tune the reporting system. Councilor Hennagin suggested that staff present an updated chart to the Council once every six to eight weeks. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the list of contractors to whom staff sent the RFP for the lake full work were the only people who could respond because they were prequalified. She mentioned that staff was working on a LOIS lesson plan for the School District to use in its new science lab, as suggested in a recent Lake Oswego Review article. She noted the excellent project overview published in a regional realtor newspaper. She presented a video staff made of the work going on at Maple Circle last Friday. She said that they would post it on the City website and on Facebook. She indicated that they hoped to continue making these videos as the project progressed. She presented a detailed schedule for the project. She explained that staff built the schedule around the known critical key dates for the project, and that it was subject to change once the City hired the lake full contractor. She mentioned that the lake full RFP documents were available at the library, the West End Building, and the Engineering Department. Mr. McIntyre recalled that the prior Council had requested that staff do as much public outreach on this project as possible, given that the LOIS project was the most dramatic project in this community of any project historically. He cited the video clip as an example of the various types of outreach that staff was doing in its efforts to communicate with citizens. He acknowledged the good work done by Ms. Heisler and her staff, and thanked her. 3.3 Community Warehouse Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he asked for this presentation after visiting Community Warehouse and seeing its commitment to sustainability. Mr. Lashbrook introduced Roz Bavener, Community Warehouse President. He recalled that the Mayor suggested he research this non-profit organization, which could provide an opportunity for the City to help promote an effort that benefitted the lowest income people in the region, as well as supporting sustainability. Ms. Bavener explained that Community Warehouse began in 2001 with the mission of providing furniture and household items to low income families and individuals. She indicated that they continued this mission today in collaboration with over 100 different social service agencies in assisting people who really needed the help. She said that they worked primarily in the tri-county area, as well as in Clark County. She mentioned that their Warehouse was the third largest out of the 27 furniture banks across the U.S. She asked the citizens of Lake Oswego to donate the 'stuff' that they no longer used to the Warehouse either by drop off at a collection site (often a business doing a collection drive) or by requested truck pick-up. She mentioned requesting a tax receipt. She spoke of having the truck City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 February 17, 2009 available in the Lake Oswego area on the first Saturday of every month. She invited the community to their annual Chair Affair, a fundraiser at which they auctioned chairs created by artists. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that currently their truck came to the Tigard/Tualatin/Lake Oswego area one day a week. Their proposal was to dedicate the first Saturday of the month to Lake Oswego. She noted that unlike Goodwill, they picked up items, and they took mattresses and box springs. Councilor Jordan referenced her volunteer service on Boards that dealt with the people served by the Community Warehouse. She described this as a great opportunity for Lake Oswego citizens to clear out their attics and basements of things that they no longer wanted, but would be of tremendous help to those transitioning from homelessness to a home. Mr. Lashbrook mentioned that the Warehouse currently served 65 families a week. He pointed out that this program was a form of recycling and sustainability, in that items such as mattresses and bedsprings were reused and not sent to the landfill. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he would work with Ms. Bavener regarding how the Lake Oswego community might adopt the Community Warehouse. He would then present the idea to the Council at a study session. Councilor Olson mentioned that she became aware of this wonderful program several years ago, and wholeheartedly supported it. She observed that it was not a well-known program in Lake Oswego, but she thought that the community would support it if it knew about it. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hoffman pulled Item 4.1.2, Resolution 09-09, for discussion. He noted that Councilors Jordan and Olson submitted corrections to the minutes. Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (7-0) Councilor Hennagin explained that while Tia Ross (a former chair of the Historic Resources Advisory Board) was willing to serve again on the Board. However, a review of her application found that she did not reside within the city limits or within the City's Urban Services Boundary. Therefore, she was not eligible to serve on the Board, and the Council regretfully could not re- appoint her. He mentioned her dedication to the Board, and thanked her for her tireless efforts to preserve and protect the city's historic structures and sites, efforts that he was confident would continue in the future. 4.1 RESOLUTIONS 4.1.1 Resolution 09-05, approving appointments to the Library Advisory Board Action: Adopt resolution 09-05 approving the appointment of David White to the Library Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending January 31, 2011, John Ferrel, Richard Slaven, and Shelby Campion for three-year terms ending January 31, 2012, and Ann Pritchard as alternate 4.1.2 Resolution 09-09, reaffirming support and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and authorizing Mayor Jack D. Hoffman to sign the agreement. Action: This item was pulled for further discussion. 4.1.3 Resolution 09-10, approving appointments to the Historic Resources Advisory Board Action: Adopt Resolution 09-10, approving the re-appointment of Tim Mather to the Historic Resources Advisory Board for a three-year term ending December 31, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 February 17, 2009 2011, the appointment of Kasey Holwerda and Marylou Colver for three-year terms ending December 31, 2011, and Craig Foster as alternate 4.1.4 Resolution 09-11, approving an appointment to the Planning Commission Action: Adopt Resolution 09-11, approving the appointment of Jon C. Gustafson to a four year term on the Planning Commission from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2013 4.2 REPORTS 4.2.1 Resignation of Alison Webster from the Planning Commission Action: Accept resignation 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 January 20, 2009, regular meeting 4.3.2 January 27, 2009, special meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 5.1 Item 4.1.2 - Resolution 09-09, reaffirming support and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and authorizing Mayor Jack D. Hoffman to sign the agreement. Ms. Millhauser recalled that former Mayor Hammerstad signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement in 2005. She indicated that more than 900 mayors across the U.S. have signed this agreement, including 12 cities in Oregon. She explained that the Greg Nichols, Mayor of Seattle, developed the agreement when the U.S. declined to sign the Kyoto protocols. She indicated that the staff report (pp.5-12) described the actions to which the agreement asked cities to commit. She reviewed the 12 actions listed for cities to perform (p.6). She mentioned that Lake Oswego had one of the highest percentages of citizens and businesses purchasing renewable energy from PGE. She noted that this resolution reflected the Council's goal to incorporate sustainability in all City work. Councilor Tierney moved to adopt Resolution 09-09. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (7-0) 6. CITIZEN COMMENT • John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace He described as 'shocking' the Council's majority vote to spend $120,000 to replace toilets and urinals in City buildings and at the Safeco building, given the recession/depression times facing the country. He mentioned that the equipment worked fine, and that it would take 27 years to realize a payback in water savings. He noted the over 100,000 gallons per month water consumption at the Safeco building to water the grass and English ivy. He questioned replacing this equipment, given that Lake Oswego did not have a water shortage now or in the foreseeable future. He argued that the City could better use the money to repair the leaky and aging roofs at the ACC and City Hall, as described in the 2007 SERA Architect report, or on other neglected maintenance repairs at other City buildings. He observed that prudent homeowners maintained their properties. He asked why the City has not kept public buildings in good repair. He argued that following a 2001 report informing the Council of needed building repairs, the City could have accessed a $250,000 FEMA grant to help make the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 February 17, 2009 repairs, but it did not do so. He asked why the City has not implemented the recommendations made by SERA Architects in 2007 to repair City Hall. He referenced the SERA representative's negative comments at the February 10 Council meeting, which he described as making it sound as though City Hall was almost uninhabitable. He said that after studying the SERA report, he wrote his July 12, 2007, column in the Lake Oswego Review, in response to Council members' incorrect recounting of the report's statements in an effort to make a case for moving City Hall to the Safeco building. He contended that there now appeared to be an emerging campaign to disparage the condition of the downtown City buildings in order to justify the purchase and retention of the West End Building. He argued that survey results have been neglected. He cited the Campbell DeLong citizen attitude survey that found only four out of 400 respondents mentioning a community center as a priority. He mentioned the Hibbetts survey results that showed only 17% with an interest in that use. He asked why the community center proposal has re-emerged as a WEB use at a huge initial investment. He wondered whether Wells Fargo Bank would be willing to extend its full $20 million line of credit in July when the City's credit line used for the purchase came up for renewal. He pointed out that the property value has sunk to $8 to $9 million. He described the loan as secured by a lien on the property, and used to make interest only payments on the loan and other Safeco property expenses. He asked where the money would come from to pay for the new toilets and urinals. He asked what the City's current cash balance was in the property tax reserve fund balance. He asked where the money would come from if Wells Fargo called in the loan to be paid in full. He asked if the fund balance policy of not spending more than 25% for real estate purchases and refinancing has been reinstated by the Council. If not, why has it not been reinstated to protect Lake Oswego taxpayers from these types of expenditures? He held that these very important questions required thoughtful and accurate answers by the Council. He argued for inviting the public to make remarks at Council workshop actions to give input on these important matters prior to the Council taking action. 7. ORDINANCES 7.1 Ordinance 2536, amending the Lake Oswego Code relating to the City's Budget Period and the terms of appointed Budget Committee members Mr. Powell explained that this ordinance would restore the City's budget cycle to an annual budget. He indicated that while the Council could opt for a one-year budget by resolution, his understanding from staff and the Council's consensus was that the City would be returning to a one-year budget for the foreseeable future. He indicated that the ordinance would also change Budget Committee member terms from four years for a two-year budget cycle to three years for a one-year budget cycle, per the requirements of state law. Councilor Hennagin moved to enact Ordinance 2536. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (7-0) 8. RESOLUTIONS 8.1 Resolution 09-06, establishing the terms of appointed Budget Committee memb rs Mr. Powell explained that this resolution would stagger Budget Committee member terms in compliance with state law and the City Code requirements. He indicated that the Council Interview Committee for the Budget Committee developed the recommendations for staggering the terms so that one-third of the membership turns over each year. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 February 17, 2009 Councilor Jordan mov d to adopt Resolution 09-06. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voic vote was taken, and th motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting 'aye.' (7-0) 9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information Councilor Moncrieff mentioned serving on the interview boards for the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Library Advisory Board. She thanked all the citizens who volunteered for the City. She observed that the talent and dedication of Lake Oswego citizens was impressive. 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 9.2.1 JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) Councilor Jordan reported on the hearing on the flexible funding for 2010 through 2012. She mentioned the Committee's interest in placing those MTIP funds into bicycle/pedestrian trail projects that could not find funding elsewhere. She mentioned that the Technical Advisory Committee did not recommend Lake Oswego's Kerr Parkway bike trail project, as it did not meet the requirements in the same way that other projects did. She noted that no one from Lake Oswego testified in support of Lake Oswego's project. She spoke to increasing citizen interest and education in City projects in order to have citizen involvement at the JPACT hearings. 9.2.2 Regional Water Providers Consortium Councilor Johnson reported that the Consortium had a significant discussion at its last meeting regarding its work with sustainability and water conservation. She mentioned the upcoming four months of radio ads and some television ads promoting water conservation. She noted the Consortium's work on emergency management for water and insuring that citizens around the region had a supply of clean potable water in case of emergency. 9.2.3 Metro Urban Reserves/Rural Reserves Committee Mayor Hoffman reported that at the meetings last Wednesday, the Committee starting drawing lines on Washington and Clackamas County maps in terms of urban and rural reserve candidate areas. He commented that Lake Oswego needed to stay involved and to pay attention to how this affected Stafford. He mentioned that by statute, Metro had to decide by the end of 2010 on whether to expand the UGB. He described the complicated process, which involved population projections and density capacity. He said that Metro has asked each jurisdiction how it wanted to grow in the next 20 to 50 years. He pointed out that the answers to this question affected Lake Oswego because it was a city on the southern edge of the UGB expansion area. 9.3 Making The Greatest Place Mayor Hoffman introduced Metro Councilor Carlotta Collette. Councilor Collette recalled the Metro region's request in 2007 to the State legislature for a new approach to expanding the UGB, since expanding the boundary based on soil types was not the most effective method of doing so. She mentioned criteria such as how many people could the region accommodate and what infrastructure could the region support. She spoke of the individual jurisdictions working cooperatively as a region to accommodate an increased population while maintaining the region as a livable and sustainable place. She indicated that in response to a request from the region's cities and counties, Metro was working on a regional climate action plan. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 February 17, 2009 She mentioned Metro's work with the local jurisdictions to identify aspirations and needs to create active town and regional centers, as detailed in the State of the Cities Report. She spoke of measuring a vibrant, livable, and active downtown by how many hours people could play in the downtown. She described a sustainable urban community in which people lived close to where they worked and shopped. She discussed the financial incentives document, which presented a toolkit of innovative ways for a community to fund the kind of things that it wanted to see in its downtown. She noted the design toolkit also developed by Metro to provide ideas for making the new urban communities in downtowns vibrant. She said that Metro was developing more toolkits that would come out in the next couple of years. She discussed Metro's work on integrating the Regional Transportation Plan with infrastructure planning in order to create a more inclusive process the next time it looked at expanding the UGB. She spoke of the importance of local governments working with Metro to identify what worked and did not work. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he wanted the Council to get up to speed on the UGB issue because it was in the City's backyard. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.2 City Attorney 11. STUDY SESSION 11.1 Business Recycling Requirements Program Councilor Collette said that over the past eight years, Metro has spent around $3.5 million working with businesses on recycling programs. She mentioned that 85% of the region's businesses had recycling programs in place. She noted the area's recycling rate peaked at 59% (the State goal was 64%) and has fallen to 56%. She described Metro's work with committees over the past five years to find a way to get the last 15% of businesses to send their 100,000 tons of recyclable garbage to places where it could be used instead of to the landfill. She said that they developed two alternatives: should they continue their educational effort, or mandate business recycling? She indicated that when the alternatives finally got to MPAC, MPAC voted 10 to 3 for the mandate business recycling option. She emphasized that this idea did not come solely from Metro but rather from the committees representing the cities and the counties. She recalled that the previous Lake Oswego City Council had been supportive of the idea, as was the Lake Oswego Chamber. She stated that the intent of the ordinance was to get the last 15% of the businesses to recycle. She observed that it was easy to implement and did not require garbage cops. Ms. Millhauser reviewed the next steps as outlined in the staff report. She proposed working with the City's annual business licensing process to track business recycling. Businesses would self- report on their recycling activities and the City would offer technical support and compliance information. Staff would send the businesses currently without a program to the Clackamas County Recycle at Work program for free education on waste reduction recycling. She indicated that the code enforcement piece was a last ditch effort, used only when all other avenues were exhausted. In those rare cases, staff would work within the City's existing code enforcement system. Mayor Hoffman observed that the next step was the Council directing staff to come back with a business recycling ordinance. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 February 17, 2009 Ms. Millhauser confirmed to Councilor Tierney that code enforcement would be done with the City's existing resources. She indicated that staff had 18 months to get the enforcement piece in place from when the ordinance was passed. Ideally, they wanted to avoid code enforcement by working with the businesses to resolve issues. She indicated to Councilor Tierney that Metro had funds available for the educational piece. She noted that the City would have minimal expenses in providing notices and forms. Councilor Olson commented that she thought that the business license tie in would work well. Ms. Millhauser clarified to Councilor Jordan that bagged shredded paper was recyclable. She confirmed that all the information would be available prior to people coming in for their business license, and that staff has developed a list of pointed questions to ask regarding their recycling practices. She noted that this would also allow the City to start tracking recycling practices for sustainability. Councilor Jordan observed that the Lake Oswego business community was actively involved in recycling. She wondered whether Lake Oswego had less of a problem with business recycling than the greater Metro region did. She mentioned that a Sustainability Advisory Board member worked with large corporations on reducing the amount of packaging entering the waste stream in the first place. Councilor Hennagin asked how staff intended to reach business owners, such as himself, who mailed in their business license renewals, and did not come down to City Hall. Ms. Millhauser indicated that staff would send out information with the renewal paperwork. She noted that staff would work with Metro and the County to reach the businesses exempted by the State from having a business license, such as realtors and insurance agents. Councilor Tierney asked how they would know if they succeeded. Ms. Millhauser explained that the regional level data would indicate whether the program was succeeding on a regional level. She indicated that they would now have local information data, which would hopefully tell them whether they were succeeding. Marta McGuire, Metro Senior Planner, said that Metro would do a performance report on the program at the two-year mark, after all jurisdictions have implemented the system. That, combined with performance surveys, would give them a good sense of how the program has progressed. Councilor Hennagin asked if staff has looked into helping restaurants recycle food waste. Ms. Millhauser said that Portland had a voluntary program for food waste, in which a few Lake Oswego businesses participated. Staff has discussed the idea with Allied Waste and other partners. She mentioned that one problem was the lack of a food composting facility in the Portland area; everything was shipped up to Seattle. Councilor Collette said that a problem they have run into in trying to locate a food composting facility in this area was resistance to putting it too close to urban centers. Ms. McGuire concurred that the biggest challenge was the facility, as there was a willingness in the region to participate in the program. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:04 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 11.2 Sensitive Lands Community Development Code Amendments Ms. Frisbee noted that the sensitive lands work program for 2009 has three components. The first was the housekeeping amendments before the Council tonight, which the Planning Commission has vetted and recommended. These would correct, clarify, and in some limited circumstances streamline the process, as well as bring the City Code into compliance with Metro Titles 3 and 13. She said that the second component was updating the maps to reflect fully the Sensitive Lands Inventory. The third component was identifying and evaluating policy issues and options City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 February 17, 2009 associated with the review and implementation of the Sensitive Lands protection program. She indicated that staff expected a fuller discussion of the last two components in the periodic review process. Mayor Hoffman complimented Ms. Papaefthimiou on the impressive report she complied in 48 hours or less. Ms. Papaefthimiou gave a PowerPoint presentation. She began with an overview of how the current sensitive lands program worked (p.82) in identifying whether a development project affected a mapped resource, delineating the resource, minimizing/mitigating the impact, and recording the map. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that recording the map guaranteed that the landowner would not need to make another delineation in the future, even if the resource changed over time. She said that the owner could apply to re-delineate the resource, such as wetlands that changed over time. She gave another example of once the landowner delineated 50% of a tree grove, he/she was committed to that square footage --the City could not ask the owner to make the delineation larger but neither could the owner ask the City to make it smaller. She showed a graphic of Lake Oswego's Sensitive Lands map. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the fieldwork for the map was done in 1993 and 1994 but the map and code were not adopted until 1998. She explained to Councilor Olson that this was the base map from which staff worked, and would continue to work until they made the changes. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the water resources depicted on the map did not include the buffers. She said that that was a proposed code change because people found that confusing. She described how the stream buffers were measured. She reviewed the criteria for selecting which 50% of a tree grove would be preserved. She compared the Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands code to Metro Titles 3 and 13 (p.88). She explained that Lake Oswego's code protected both water quality and wildlife habitat, while Metro had Title 3 for water quality and Title 13 for wildlife habitat. She indicated that after discussions with Metro staff, they believed that Lake Oswego could substantially comply with the Metro Title 3 standard by making minor changes to its own code; the City would not need to adopt Metro's model ordinance. She explained that compliance with Title 13 differed from compliance with Title 3 in that a jurisdiction could have any comparable program that achieved the same performance objectives as Title 13, or adopt the model ordinance. She mentioned that a jurisdiction had to first comply with Title 3 before it could comply with Title 13. She speculated that once Lake Oswego complied with Title 3, the City would look to its own habitat protection programs to meet Title 13. She pointed out that Metro had broad protection for water resource buffers, while Lake Oswego had more flexible protections. On the other hand, Lake Oswego had far stronger tree grove protections than Metro did. She indicated that while the Lake Oswego code allowed low impact development approaches, it did not currently have the incentives that the Metro Code did to encourage their use. She described Metro's two review tracks, a clear and objective standard that almost anyone could meet through a non-discretionary process, or a more flexible approach that achieved the same level of habitat protection. She noted that Lake Oswego had only one review track. She indicated to Councilor Tierney that the objective standards in Lake Oswego's program included elements such as the 25 to 35 foot setbacks for stream buffers. Discretionary elements included balancing the eight criteria for tree grove protection. She mentioned that the Lake Oswego code had detailed development standards, which the Metro code did not. On the other hand, the Metro code had detailed mitigation requirements, which the Lake Oswego did not. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 February 17, 2009 Councilor Jordan asked why Lake Oswego chose the path of detailed development standards over Metro's broader standard of'avoid, minimize, mitigate, and using best practices.' Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated that it was a reflection of how the Lake Oswego code developed historically. She pointed out that Lake Oswego put its Sensitive Lands program in place before Metro Titles 3 and 13; it developed its own model based on its regulation of development in other zones. Mayor Hoffman recalled that Metro went with the broad standard because it had region-wide applicability and was performance-based. Ms. Frisbee suggested re-visiting the different approaches during the policy discussion component. Ms. Papaefthimiou reviewed the minimum changes required for the Lake Oswego code to comply substantially with Metro Title 3 (pp.89-90). She noted that staff developed these in consultation with Metro staff, and that the Metro Council would have the final say. She confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that based on her understanding of the discussions with Metro staff, if Lake Oswego submitted these changes, its code would likely come into compliance with Title 3, which would turn into compliance with Title 13. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that while there were some discrepancies between Lake Oswego's maps and Metro's maps, she thought any issues could be resolved without making changes to Lake Oswego's maps because Lake Oswego's map were most likely correct. However, they needed to reach an understanding with Metro about that. She commented that they could then comply with Title 13 without any code changes, but staff would need to present the City's program to Metro. She reviewed the housekeeping changes (pp.90-94). She explained that none of these changes would change how the City did things in the office, as they represented current practice and interpretations. She mentioned that one item that engendered a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission was the change to adjust the review area to match the regulated area. She passed on the Planning Commission's strong request that the City give people back their money if someone had to apply to correct a map error, and it turned out to be a true map error on the City's part. She clarified to Councilor Olson that the current code stipulated a review of development within the mapped resource area or within 25 feet of the resource area. The Planning Commission re- wrote the item to eliminate the number(since many stream buffers were 30 feet wide) and to regulate within the mapped resource and its buffer. That way, if the buffer changed, so did the reference. She explained to Councilor Hennagin that the reason why a stream buffer could count as a tree grove was that protected tree groves often stood adjacent to a stream. Since an applicant had to protect a riparian buffer along the stream, and protect 50% of the tree grove, staff's approach has been to count the riparian buffer towards the 50% of the tree grove, as long as the buffer had trees in it. She mentioned the wording clarification regarding building straight up on the existing foundation of a legal conforming house. She noted the clear and objective wildlife friendly fence standard for a four-foot tall fence with a foot at the bottom passable to all animals. She observed that there were many ways to design wildlife friendly fences, and therefore, the code also allowed any other design approved by the City Manager. She clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that a wildlife friendly fence would be in the protected portion of a tree grove or within the riparian buffer. Fences at the property edge were not regulated by the Sensitive Lands code. Councilor Johnson indicated to Councilor Jordan that one could build whatever kind of fence one wanted, as long as it was not on sensitive lands. Once the fence went onto the sensitive lands, then it had to be wildlife friendly. Ms. Papa fthimiou commented that the intent of wildlife City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 February 17, 2009 friendly fences was not to provide wildlife passage but rather to keep wildlife from being trapped in people's yards, thus avoiding unfortunate confrontations between skunks and dogs. Councilor Hennagin expressed concern regarding the item "development should not alter drainage in any harmful way." He asked who would define what was harmful and not harmful. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated that the City already had a drainage standard in place that substantially used the common law meaning. A development could not concentrate the flow across adjacent property such that it would cause erosion. Mr. Powell pointed out that the code language did not use the word 'harmful' but rather said `to not adversely impact the functions and values of the resource.' Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Tierney that the language in (C) on p. 124 regarding trams accessing Oswego Lake was left over from when staff had thought it might create a new overlay district for the Willamette River and need to address transit. They were not going to do that now. Councilor Jordan asked how decks could be considered in the same way as patios, since a deck on stilts would not damage the buffer area the way a patio would. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that staff followed an avoid, minimize, and mitigate standard. They first tried to avoid impacting the resource area at all with a deck or patio. If there were no other place on a constrained site to put a deck or patio, a deck (permeable) was less impactful than a patio (impermeable) for water quality. However, a deck still took the land under it out of play in terms of wildlife habitat value. Councilor Jordan noted that (f) existing landscaping on p. 131 should read `altered or modified,' and not 'be modified.' The Council discussed extensively the change on p. 93 "to remove the word 'new' from the requirement that "new structures, parking areas, active use recreational facilities, streets and driveways shall be set back at least 10 feet from an RP district buffer." This means that both new and remodeled structures should be set back 10 feet (e.g., primary structures within 10 feet of the resource buffer are nonconforming). Councilor Olson asked if`remodeled structures' meant that an addition to a house had to be set back 10 feet. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that the intent was to clarify misunderstandings about what was non-conforming and what was conforming with respect to the setback and the construction setback. She referenced the code language for Section B(a)(1) on p. 134. She noted that interior remodeling did not fall under review for the sensitive lands code. Councilor Jordan described the buffer as referring to where one could build a structure and the construction buffer as referring to how much room one had to protect while building the structure. Ms. Papaefthimiou clarified to Councilor Johnson that a building already existing in a sensitive lands area, while a legal use that could be maintained in perpetuity, was also a non-conforming one. If a non-conforming use were destroyed and rebuilt, it would have to come into conformance at that time. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the building would have to be built somewhere else, or the owner could apply for buffer averaging or re-locating the 50% of the tree grove. She confirmed to Councilor Olson that the Infill Task Force was discussing the issue of non- conforming uses (p.88). She said that she expected a recommendation to come forward proposing something provided for in the Metro model code. If a house were destroyed by a natural disaster or something beyond the owner's control, then the owner can rebuild on the same footprint, even for a non-conforming use. She confirmed that this code language did not include that compassionate clause. She noted that it would be a policy change, and something to consider as well for houses that were non- conforming to setbacks other than the sensitive lands setbacks. She indicated to Councilor Ti rn y that the Planning Commission has not considered this issue when looking at policy issues City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 February 17, 2009 because the Infill Committee has not yet put forward the recommendation, but staff would bring it to the Planning Commission at that time. She indicated to Councilor Olson that taking out the word 'new' was not making policy because the change reflected the current practices of the City. 'New' was misleading because other sections of the code already said that the structure was non-conforming. Mr. Powell clarified that staff has interpreted 'new structure' to mean 'new construction' as opposed to a wholly new structure. He indicated that codifying staff practice met the definition of'policy neutral' in terms of housekeeping changes. However, since it has been a staff interpretation, the Council could take it up during the policy component. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this did not change what happened now if a non-conforming house burned down and the owners wanted to replace the house on the exact same footprint. Mr. Powell pointed out that the code was clear about that. The interpretation issue focused on whether the construction buffer and the RP district buffer including expanding existing buildings or wholly new buildings. Mr. Powell explained that the code used attrition to bring non-conforming uses into compliance with the current code. If a non-conforming structure was destroyed, then the wholly new structure should comply with the code. He pointed out that allowing instances where a non-conforming use was rebuilt as non-conforming meant that non-conforming uses would never go away. However, that was a policy choice. Councilor Olson commented that she preferred to take this item out of the housekeeping changes. Councilor Jordan asked how many homes would be severely impacted if the owners were not able to rebuild on the property. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that her best estimate from GIS was that there were 31 lots in Lake Oswego completely covered by a resource area. She noted the special code section guaranteeing that any legal lot had the right for a reasonably sized single family home. All other affected lots presumably had a building footprint outside the resource area. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff proposed this as a housekeeping change because it was current staff practice and reflected the interpretation of the code as a whole. She explained that they called out the use of the word 'new' because they felt it was misleading and did not follow with other sections of the code. She emphasized that this was simply a correction to make the code clearer. Mayor Hoffman noted that although this might shortly change, for right now this provision applied to both new structures and remodeled structures. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that there were other places in the code where the use of the word 'new' was contradictory to other parts of the code. She reiterated that the code as a whole said that existing uses not in compliance with the current code were non- conforming. The word 'new' was misleading and contrary to the larger body of the code. It should be deleted for clarity and internal consistency. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the issue Councilor Olson raised dealt with remodels on the existing footprint, and not with new structures. Ms. Papaefthimiou commented that the housekeeping changes for the construction standards addressed construction practices, such as protection fences and managing the drainage during construction. She reviewed the three substantive changes to the graphics. She spoke of the importance of providing more realistic images that were to scale. She mentioned the proposed definition of 'steep' (with respect to 'steep slopes') as 25%, a common definition used in the region. She noted the proposal to change the method for measuring the top of a bank that was filled from estimating where it was historically to simply measuring it from where the top now existed, unless City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 February 17, 2009 there was evidence of a code violation. A new graphic showed how to find the top of a bank around a culvert, which was not currently addressed in the code. She explained that the two text changes related to the graphics changes stated that the buffer would be shown in the Sensitive Lands Atlas in order to give landowners a better picture of what land was affected by the code. She indicated that the last group of housekeeping changes proposed to simplify the review process for property owners repairing or replacing existing legal structures by taking these projects out of the Sensitive Lands review process. The changes also exempted projects falling under the definition of development that did not involve new structures or removing plants. Councilor Hennagin asked how staff distinguished between replacing something on a resource- protected site and something that could not be done under the previous section that the Council discussed. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that most of the exempted projects did not require a building permit, and they met the code definition of'exempt development.' Ms. Papaefthimiou noted that the changes to made it easier to do resource enhancement or restoration projects and interpretative designs in natural areas. She indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff was combining the existing native plant list and negative plant list into one list. Councilor Hennagin asked staff to provide (during policy discussions) a simple explanation of the differences between the Metro approach and the Lake Oswego approach. Councilor Tierney recalled that one of the challenges was to improve citizen service in the Community Development Department. He asked if these changes brought the City closer to providing the quality of service that staff was striving for. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated that while it did not get staff all the way there, the housekeeping changes were a step in the right direction. The changes did tell people what staff was actually doing and provided for consistent staff answers in the future. Ms. Frisbee acknowledged Councilor Tierney's point that the code was technical and complicated material to begin with, something difficult to streamline. She commented that moving to GIS overlays that people could click on to see where the sensitive lands delineation lines were would help. She indicated that staff was not ready to do that yet, but they were looking forward to doing so. Councilor Jordan commented that she saw a misunderstanding and confusion in the community about sensitive lands. She speculated that people had not realized in 1998 how much the newly adopted maps affected them. This latest round has raised citizen awareness about the impact of sensitive lands designations, which might be why the City was receiving more public input today than it did in 1998. She noted that the designation of sensitive lands was also part of the urban/rural reserves process. She held that the only way to prevent development impacts on sensitive lands in the future was to identify those lands before development took place. Adopting these changes would help prevent future confusion by property owners. She pointed out that there was the legal thing to be done, the right thing to be done in protecting the resources, and the political reality of dealing with people's private property. She observed that this work looked at the situation from a code sense, as opposed to what happened to individuals personally. She commented that even with a process allowing rebuilding on lots completely covered by a resource, it was still a difficult process for property owners to go through. Ms. Frisbee indicated that the goal for staff was to minimize surprises and to give clear notice. She concurred that it was difficult for an individual to understand the impacts unless he/she sat down with staff to talk about it. She mentioned that once people understood why the City was City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 February 17, 2009 asking for an adjustment, most were happy to make the adjustment. She said that staff was also willing to work out trade offs with people willing to do resource enhancement. She spoke of the importance of staff continuing the kind of customer service that Ms. Papaefthimiou has been providing on an individual basis with property owners in working with them to understand the overall benefit. She mentioned being as flexible as they could be, while remaining true to the goal of protecting sensitive lands through the application of the code. She agreed that the process would never be easy. She emphasized staff's intent to make it work as well as it could. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the system allowing a citizen to type in his/her address and see the sensitive lands was already up on the website. She recalled the Council question raised at the last study session regarding why staff mapped the lands in the City's urban services boundary (USB) that were not within the city limits, when the City could not regulate development outside the city. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan required the mapping because the City was supposed to have a plan for all the area within its USB. She said that the work to complete the mapping process supported the 'no surprises' idea, in that people considering annexing to the city could know what their options were with respect to the City regulating sensitive lands on their property. She presented a map showing the existing sensitive lands resources and a draft map showing potential additions to the Sensitive Lands Inventory. She indicated to Councilor Olson that the gold highlighted resources that did not achieve a significant habitat assessment score, such as the ponds on the golf course. She noted that the consultant had looked for wildlife habitat and water quality functions. She indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that this map was on the Planning Department page of the City website. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that she listed all the resources within the USB because the Comprehensive Plan required the listing of any zone and overlay. She noted that there were many areas that could be added in Birdshill and several in Skylands. She mentioned that even though resources in the open space tracts of planned developments could not be developed, she added them to the map for consistency. She explained to Mayor Hoffman that many resources in Lake Forest were not mapped because the consultant found that the understory of the trees was developed with lawn and landscape-type plants, which did not provide significant wildlife habitat. Councilor Jordan commented that one reason why the previous Council thought it was a good idea to map the resources outside the city limits was piecemeal annexations. She recalled an annexation involving a tree grove that was part of a larger tree grove that remained outside of the city limits even today. She pointed out that it did not do any good to identify a tree grove or important resources if they could not maintain continuity in the resource. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained to Mayor Hoffman that the lake was not a wildlife resource because it was a manmade lake, and Metro did not require protection of manmade lakes and reservoirs. She acknowledged that fish lived in the lake and the lake provided some water quality functions, yet it was already developed (usually with lawn) right down to the edge of the water. She said that the code was oriented to protecting existing resources but it did not try to put things back that were already developed. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the consultant visited the proposed RC resource tree groves to perform habitat assessments. She described the process they used to obtain permission from property owners to go on their property (which not everyone gave). She discussed the map update process staff went through, including collecting data in the city and the USB, publishing draft maps, and holding open houses. She indicated that staff was moving forward with the energy, social, environment, and economic (ESEE) analysis. She said that the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 February 17, 2009 next step was staff recommendations on map changes, which it would bring forward to the Planning Commission and the Council in the spring. Mayor Hoffman commented that staff had to balance the ESEE analysis with the wildlife habitat assessments. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed that if staff decided that the economic benefit outweighed the wildlife habitat benefit, then it could recommend excluding the property from the inventory. She noted that part of the ESEE analysis was showing that the City was treating like properties alike. If the City has already protected many lots zoned single family, it would have to show how a single-family lot was different from those other lots in order to remove it from the inventory. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that property taxes paid to the City for a large house were an economic benefit that staff would consider, along with the property value to the property owners. She commented that the result of the balancing was that the code neither totally prohibited development nor totally gave up the environmental protections. She noted that the usual result of an ESEE analysis was that everybody got a little bit. She clarified to Councilor Olson that staff asked for an ESEE analysis only on properties proposed to be added to the inventory, but not for properties already on the map. She confirmed that in a situation where someone had a small house on a totally encumbered lot and he/she wanted to subdivide and build two houses as their retirement, staff could propose reanalyzing the lot. Councilor Tierney spoke to the City purchasing the 31 totally encumbered lots in order to preserve the resource, instead of losing half of it to development. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the ESEE analysis done in 1998 looked at properties from the perspective of their potential development within the adopted zone. She presented the staff recommendations contained in the work plan. Staff would move forward with the current code updates and the ones that the Planning Commission was working on now. Following that, staff would move on to the mapping update. She said that she hoped to finish the housekeeping changes and updates before Periodic Review began in earnest in the fall. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that staff would add the buffers to the map on the website. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that following the Council decision on Ordinance 2527 in March, the Council would next consider the policy clarification recommendations made by the Planning Commission. Staff would bring the map changes forward this summer. She clarified to the Mayor that the maps right now were good enough for compliance with Metro Titles 3 and 13. She confirmed that she would present a report to Council of what she would present to Metro. She indicated that her report would include the resource conservation overlays for tree groves, the tree code, the City's natural area parks, natural area restorations, and Clean Streams. Councilor Olson asked why the maps could not go forward at the same time as the Planning Commission was working on the policy questions. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that the housekeeping changes coming out of the March public hearing could potentially change the maps, in that staff was adding water quality as a purpose, which would add perennial streams. Councilor Olson questioned whether a housekeeping change that changed the actual definition of a stream was merely a housekeeping change. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that housekeeping changes meant clarifications to the existing policy. She noted that there were changes to simplify review, to make graphics more understandable, and to comply with Title 3. This was a change to comply with Title 3. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Johnson that all the perennial streams were included on the draft maps published to the website. She pointed out that if they did not move forward with City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 February 17, 2009 a code change intended to comply with Title 3, then that would change staff's approach on the map updates. She said that staff has been assuming that that would not happen. Ms. Frisbee commented that this was also a staff resource issue because the mapping would require community engagement plus staff involvement. She noted that the same was true of the policy changes, which would surface during the periodic review community engagement phase. She said that staff proposed sequencing the processes this way, but it was open for discussion. Ms. Papaefthimiou pointed out that this was a big deal to the people potentially impacted by the map update, and they deserved the staff time and resources to do site visits and make a fair and specific consideration of their individual property. She commented that with the housekeeping changes, staff was looking at the big picture and engaging people already interested in environmental issues. She observed that those two groups did not participate well in the same process because one group was interested in specific properties, and the other group was not. Councilor Jordan concurred with Ms. Papaefthimiou's comment about handling a general policy question versus an individual situation, noting that it also showed up in the tiered water rate discussion. She asked staff to create a direct link to the sensitive lands maps on the front page of the City's website. Councilor Johnson mentioned a concern regarding waiting on the maps. People would not know that their lot was under consideration. If they had known, they would have been more active in the process. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that the Planning Commission shared that concern, and held an open house in December specifically for those potentially affected by the map updates. She mentioned the second open house held in January, open to all owners of sensitive lands and those with proposed sensitive lands to provide input on the code changes. She indicated to Councilor Johnson that all that information was on the website and available to the citizens. Ms. Frisbee mentioned that staff would continue to do targeted outreach to the affected property owners. Councilor Olson confirmed that one of the Planning Commission's biggest concerns had been a citizen not knowing that his/her property might be put on the map, and, therefore, he/she did not testify before the Commission or the Council. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Olson that staff has included the owners of properties with perennial streams in the process since 2003. She said that staff has sent two letters to property owners with potential sensitive lands specifically notifying them that their land was under consideration. Councilor Hennagin asked what kind of attendance staff got at the open houses after doing targeted mailings. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that 20 people came to the December open house and 40 to 45 came to the January open house. Mr. Powell pointed out that property owners of potential RC/RP areas outside the city limits could attend the hearings about the designation, and they had 15 days after annexation to give notice of a challenge to that designation. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Respectfully submitted, ON April 7, 2009 Robyn hristie Kristin J son, Presiding Officer City Recorder City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 February 17, 2009