Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-03-09 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 9, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. on March 9, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Kevin McCaleb, Water Conservation Specialist; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Rec Director; Jeff Munro, Superintendent of Parks & Golf Maintenance; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Kari Duncan, Water Treatment Plant Manager; Denny Egner, Asst Planning Director 3. STUDY SESSION Mayor Hoffman indicated to the Council that the March 30 study session would be an introduction to the Comprehensive Plan, during which they would review the plan in detail. He explained that he wanted everyone to be operating on the same page with respect to the Comprehensive Plan update. 3.1 Community Survey Ms. Kirk distributed a copy of the initial draft of the community survey. Martha DeLong, DeLong &Associates, reminded the Council that the purpose of this bi-annual random telephone survey was to find out what the residents thought about the quality of life in Lake Oswego, the basic services provided by the City, and for direction on selected issues facing the City. She mentioned the goal this year for a 15-minute survey. She shared the concern about calling landline phones only and not reaching cell phone owners, but landline phones remained the only economical and accurate method for reaching the majority of people. Ms. DeLong indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that they could put a similar survey online. She said that she has discussed the possibility with City staff. She mentioned that the survey would have to be much shorter, as people had even shorter attention spans on the internet. Councilor Jordan observed that this landline phone methodology tended to reach an older demographic. A comparison with an online survey would be interesting. Ms. DeLong concurred with the Councilor that making sure that a person responded only once to an online survey was an issue. She mentioned that they could put controls in to make sure that a particular computer answered only once. Councilor Jordan suggested adding a question to the survey asking if people have heard of the Centennial Celebration events. If the City was not currently reaching people with the information, then staff needed to know that. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the randomness of the phone survey yielded as valid a result as one could get. He indicated that there was a nominal cost to doing an online survey. He discussed the tension between a self-selected online survey that yielded different, even contradictory, results than a random phone survey. He commented that he thought there were those in the community who genuinely wanted to answer these questions, and there were those who wanted to skew the results on any politically charged questions that the City might ask. He explained that he was City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 March 9, 2010 struggling with the question of whether to move forward with an online survey, but he did think they could continue the conversation. Councilor Moncrieff acknowledged Mr. McIntyre's concern but pointed out that, in a way, even phone surveys were self-selected because people had to agree to take them. She encouraged keeping the option of online surveys open (Open City Hall, Survey Monkey), since it did involve a different demographic than the phone survey. Councilor Jordan suggested taking a couple of questions from the random survey, on which the Council would like hear more, and putting those in an online survey. Councilor Hennagin said that he assumed that Ms. DeLong used the same process to contact the survey interviewees as she explained two years ago. He asked if there were any changes to the survey questions. Ms. DeLong indicated that they made a few changes but they tried to keep the majority of questions the same in order to track trends over time. She said that they would complete 400 surveys. Ms. Kirk explained that they made changes primarily to shorten the interview time to 12 to 15 minutes. She reviewed the criteria they used to determine whether a survey question would provide useful information. She went over the general survey structure, which began with general screening questions, followed by questions relating to City services and the City Council. Ms. DeLong indicated to Councilor Tierney that one reason for consolidating the parks element with the recreation element was that people did not separate the two in their own minds, and they did not know how to rate them separately. She confirmed that 'very unsatisfied' ratings on any given service served as an indicator to staff that they needed to find out why the residents were unsatisfied. Mayor Hoffman suggested changing the language from "X Department" to "X services or programs." He commented that that would be more consistent with the 2008 survey in rating what the departments did for the citizens, as opposed to rating the department itself. Ms. Kirk noted the nine questions on p. 6, which they had not been able to shorten. She explained that Questions 3 through 9 dealt with current issues and policy discussions identified by staff. Councilor Tierney observed that the issue in the community surrounding the protection of natural resources (#3) focused on private property, and not public property. Councilor Moncrieff agreed that the question should ask about one or the other. Councilor Olson expressed concern that Questions 3 through 9 were all phrased as leading questions. She argued that a respondent would naturally say 'yes' to all of them as a general concept. However, there were no questions asking if the respondent would be willing to pay for doing all of them. Councilor Johnson commented that a question could not be neutral. It needed to be phrased so that the respondent had to pick 'yes' or 'no.' Councilor Hennagin agreed. Ms. DeLong explained that people hated 'yes and no' questions because they were often somewhere in the middle. Councilor Johnson suggested borrowing language from Question 9 about the City committing resources to use in the other questions as a means of addressing Councilor Olson's concern. Councilor Jordan argued that it was too late in the process to ask if a respondent supported the idea of extending the streetcar to Lake Oswego. Given the money invested already, the project was no longer an idea. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that Question 7 did not mention that one reason for needing a larger library was the inability to make all the books available due to lack of space. Mayor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Johnson that questions should not be neutral. Ms. D Long mentioned that, for their private clients, they often mixed the positive and negative questions because it kept people awake. She noted that these questions were all on the positive side because no one wanted their department or program to be the one presented in the negative. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 March 9, 2010 Ms. DeLong indicated that, based on past results, she was not concerned that all respondents would say that they wanted everything on the list; there were two sides on every issue in the community. She explained that they designed the survey to assess the level of support on a given issue; once the Council had that initial information, then the City needed to go back and ask questions about the cost. Mr. McIntyre explained that these were topics and wording on which staff wanted to gauge the Council's reactions. He indicated that what he was hearing was that the topics were good but the wording needed some work. He commented that Councilor Jordan's suggestion to add a question about the Centennial was something that they could ask. He encouraged further Council feedback on the topics. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that all the questions except Question 9 (new topics) went back to a baseline comparison in order to track trends. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Jordan that, while he agreed that Question 6 on Foothills was wordy, he had expanded the original shorter question because of his concern that not everyone knew where Foothills was located. Councilor Jordan wondered whether they should even call this area `Foothills,' as there were no hills down there. Councilor Tierney argued that Foothills was the generally known name for this area. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would work on the wording more. He mentioned that the staff intent behind the question was to find out whether a respondent was aware of the area, and whether he/she thought developing it was a good idea. Councilor Johnson indicated that she was more interested in hearing what people thought about denser housing or higher-rise buildings in the Foothills area than about retail space and improving pedestrian access to the river. She suggested limiting the development question to one development issue. Councilor Hennagin agreed that the survey need not include retail, while Councilor Jordan mentioned mixed use and high-density housing. Councilor Tierney suggested three potential topics for discussion purposes: the tennis facility, the new City logo, and attainable/affordable housing. Councilor Olson suggested asking about the new designation of Stafford as urban reserve. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that it was hard to combine both public and private on Question 3. Councilor Johnson concurred with striking public. The Council had no additions to Questions 10 or 11. Councilor Jordan suggested asking about the awareness of the Centennial and its associated events as Question 12b. Councilor Johnson asked to include the Festival of the Arts in Question 12. Councilor Olson suggested including the tour of historic homes, as the Historic Resources Advisory Board was heavily involved in that Heritage Council event. Councilor Jordan mentioned the Gallery Without Walls. The Council discussed whether the question should discuss civic events or only City events. Councilor Johnson clarified that she wanted to know the interest level in civic events involving the City as part of determining where to invest City resources. Mayor Hoffman agreed that there was value in asking about civic events that the City helped sponsor. Ms. DeLong questioned whether people differentiated between a civic event and a City-sponsored event. Mayor Hoffman directed the Councilors to e-mail any other questions to Ms. Kirk and the rest of the Council. 3.2 Update of the City's Water Conservation Program • Water Conservation Program Mr. McCaleb reviewed the regional, statewide and Lake Oswego issues behind the need to conserve water (p.1, slides 3, 5). He discussed the accomplishments in the banner year of 2007 (p.1, slide 2). He mentioned that one key element in the program were the commercial and residential water audits (p.1, slide 4). Another key element was the various venues for public outreach, including literature, HOA and neighborhood presentations, School District presentations, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 March 9, 2010 classes and workshops, publications, and videos/media (p.1, slide 6; p.2, slide 1, 3). He described his and the City's involvement at the national and regional level (p.2, slide 5) He reviewed the incentives and customer services offered by the City (p.2, slide 2, 4). He commented that leak detection was the most popular customer service. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the schools did not yet have rain sensors installed. He mentioned that they have given schools, such as Hallinan, faucet aerators for their lavatory faucets. He commented that all incentives and program elements were available to every water user in the city, and that staff tracked them. He discussed the water conservation project to replace the bathroom fixtures in City buildings, completed in July 2009 (p.2, slide 6). He noted that the water usage statistics they have compiled for City buildings (p.3, slide 1)found a 23% reduction in overall water usage last year. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not know why the two fire stations had 50% savings. He commented that there were many variables involved, although he thought that the Fire Chief has been instrumental in getting his staff on line with water conservation. He discussed the water conservation project of installing weather stations as the golf course and Westlake Fire Station (p.3, slide 3). He reviewed the web pages showing the weather station data (p.3, slides 5, 2). He presented tracking statistics on incentives and audits (p.3, slide 4). He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that his interaction with the top four residential users have been positive. He cited the example of an elderly man on Knaus Road who had no idea that his system was leaking 5 gallons per hour. He described the programs that they hoped to add this year(p.3, slide 6). He mentioned that rotary sprinklers provided an immediate 20% to 30% reduction in water use, and helped mitigate run off into the streets. He discussed a future project of automated meter reads and water conservation program classes for City staff(p.4, slide 1). He discussed the effort to reclaim water from the Tryon Creek Wastewater Plant for non-potable water uses (e.g., irrigation, parks toilets, and urinals) (p.4, slide 3). He reported that they have not gotten any further than the Tryon Creek plant manager thought it would be a good thing. He spoke of establishing a weather station grid in the city (p.4, slide 5) to provide real-time information on the various microclimates in Lake Oswego. He explained that the City's curtailment plan needed monitoring of environmental conditions; a grid would allow staff to monitor these conditions within the city itself, as opposed monitoring from outside the city boundaries. At Councilor Hennagin's request, Mr. McCaleb explained that the curtailment plan was an element in the Water Management and Conservation Plan that required the city to set certain restrictions on water usage in case of an emergency. He indicated that an emergency could be a mechanical failure at the treatment plant, a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, or an environmental condition, such as extreme drought. The plan set up triggers for when the City and its residents needed to take specific actions. Councilor Hennagin reported that, as a result of his exterior water audit, he used half the water last summer than he had in previous summers. Councilor Olson expressed her support for continuing the very popular toilet rebate program. She commented that, if there was a budget concern, the toilet rebate program should take priority over the washing machine rebates because the State already provided incentives for washing machines. • Parks Maintenance Water Conservation Practices Ms. Gilmer spoke of the routine practices that Parks Maintenance did in implementing water reduction strategies. She mentioned that they have added staff to help tune up the irrigation system and find leaks, as well as trained staff to do water system audits. She indicated that they City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 March 9, 2010 had an aging system that they were upgrading as they could and maximizing resources wherever possible to improve parks water use. Mr. Munro discussed the routine practices in more detail. He reviewed the cultural practices (p.4, slide 4), the irrigation system management techniques (p.4, slide 6), and irrigation design improvements (p.5, slide 1). He indicated that the automated computerized irrigation system could tell staff if there was a leak at a particular facility; unfortunately, not all parks were hooked up to the system. He discussed the recent system enhancements, beginning with the cultural practices (p.5, slide 3). He indicated that they tested eco-lawns on City properties on Bergis Road, South Shore, and the U.S. Bank property, finding that they did require less water but were problematic in other ways. Ms. Gilmer noted that eco-lawns were not designed for heavy use, such as ball fields or around playgrounds and picnic shelters. However, where they were appropriate, staff was looking at transitioning over to them. Ms. Gilmer explained that last year staff tested different areas to see how much they could reduce the watering without stressing the plants to the point of needing re-establishment. She pointed out that a lightly used lawn area did not need the same amount of watering as a heavily used athletic field. She reported that they had some success with the testing at Pilkington and River Grove last year. Mr. Munro clarified to Councilor Jordan that the City did not necessarily share athletic fields with the School District, but City staff did maintain some of them. Ms. Gilmer indicated that, while the City had paid for the installation of irrigation systems at many elementary schools and the junior highs, and Parks maintained those systems, the City did not pay for the water. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that they would pass on the information they gained about watering the fields to the School District. Mr. Munro continued the review of recent enhancements, focusing on irrigation system and facilities upgrades (p.5, slide 5). He mentioned testing an automated wet down of City athletic fields, which should save on water usage. Ms. Gilmer explained that wetting down the dirt portion of the athletic fields was a dust abatement practice. She cited the example of the wind blowing dust from George Rogers Park on to State Street and making it difficult to see. Mr. Munro commented that staff received calls from George Rogers, Westlake, and East Waluga about dust. Mr. Munro continued the review of recent enhancements, focusing on irrigation system monitoring (p.5, slide 2). Ms. Gilmer reviewed the main components of the Water Use Practices & Conservation Plan (p.5, slide 4). She mentioned that it would document their current water practices with specifics in order to maintain consistency in water management in the event of staff turnover. She pointed out that using plants appropriate to a particular beautification site would affect water usage. She explained that the Drought Response Plan portion would document Parks Maintenance's response to the different levels of curtailment identified in the Water Curtailment Plan. Mr. Munro indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff decided to use drought-resistant native species at the Stafford Road roundabout, instead of a floral display, because they blended in better with the surroundings there than a floral display would. Ms. Gilmer assured the Councilor that there was no plan to replace flowers with drought-resistant native species. Ms. Gilmer mentioned a conversation she had with Pam Peterson (who managed all the beautification sites); Ms. Petersen explained to her that native species, used to shade and a cool environment, did not always do well in roadway sites because the pavement could reach 140 to 150 degrees. She emphasized the importance of documenting a plant palette for the 126 beautification areas throughout the city to insure the most appropriate plantings for water efficiency and aesthetics. Ms. Gilm r indicated to Councilor Olson that Parks staff did review the planting scheme proposed by a landscape architect in designing a new park in order to identify maintenance issues. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 March 9, 2010 They made substitutions or modifications as needed. She mentioned that staff also reviewed the proposed irrigation specs to make sure that the system matched the City's specs. She commented that she did not know whether they included the Urban Forestry Plan in the review. Councilor Jordan recalled that the previous Council, after much staff research, decided on planting cherry trees in Millennium Park because the original trees would have grown too tall and blocked the view of the lake from the Five Spice restaurant. Ms. Gilmer said that she would have to check with Mr. Galante, but she suspected that the cherry trees in Lakefront Park (referenced by Councilor Olson) were intended to provide aesthetic continuity from Millennium Park to the park down below. Mr. Munro discussed the future park maintenance challenges (p.5, slide 6; p.6, slide 1). He mentioned the need for the different computerized system components and the different facility systems to be able to talk to each other. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff has not yet determined the cost of all the upgrades, and therefore, these items were not in the CIP. She said that they could put a ballpark estimate in the CIP as a placeholder if the Council so desired. • Working through the Challenges Mr. McCaleb commented that he was impressed with how the citizens of Lake Oswego have embraced water conservation. However, the City faced several challenges. He reviewed the challenges and the staff response to the issues involved. These challenges included limited and inaccurate baseline data (p.6, slide 3), inconsistent/inaccurate meter reads (p.6, slide 5), and water usage tracking (p.6, slide 2). He mentioned a number of other challenges (p.6, slide 4). He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the challenge of unaccounted for water loss related to the overall City water loss, as opposed to specific City facilities. He pointed out that the data challenges affected their aggressive leak detection program, in that they could not always tells where the leaks were. He explained that the large turf area audits would provide Parks staff with a baseline from which to work and make improvements. He spoke of designing new street medians to capture some of the runoff water that caused non-point source pollution problems in the lake. He explained that the lack of individual water meters on parks restroom facilities made it difficult to determine how much water went to irrigation and how much to the restroom facilities. He mentioned their finding that some departments did not use the City's landscape specs, which the City needed to use consistently across the board. He reported receiving calls from people saying that they had difficulty navigating the website. He presented his 'pie in the sky' slide (p.6, slide 6). He reviewed the benefits of a one-month billing cycle. He indicated that the norm in the area was a two-month billing cycle. He concurred that the additional fiscal costs of the extra mailings and meter reads were another challenge. He pointed out that, unless the curtailment plan was in effect, the City did not have an enforceable and well-defined water wasting code. He explained that one of his pet peeves was the use of cubic feet at the meter when everywhere else in the industry, the measurement used was millions of gallons per day. He pointed out that there were some large properties in Lake Oswego that, no matter what the owner did, would never go down to a lower water rate tier. He spoke of finding some incentives and rewards for those large property owners who tried to do a good job on water conservation. • Council Questions Councilor Jordan suggested looking at whether there were any Code issues regarding cisterns and re-use of gray water that stood in the way of improving water conservation in City buildings and parks facilities. Mr. McCaleb said that the State has convened a task force to look into gray water regulations, and that DEQ has tentatively okayed its use. He mentioned that the Plumbing City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 March 9, 2010 Code included schematics on how to use gray water. He indicated that, to his knowledge, the City Code had nothing in it to prohibit water harvesting that complied with the Building Code; it was more a question of practicality and what people could do. He noted that the City encouraged the use of rain barrels. Mr. McCaleb indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would be happy to look at the landscaping requirements in the Code to see if they were sensitive to water use. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilors Jordan and Tierney that this was an opportune time to look at the City Code with respect to encouraging maximum water conservation and the use of gray water and rainwater harvesting. She suggested starting a tour of water conservation homes that harvested rainwater or used gray water. Mr. McCaleb indicated that staff could do that. Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the magnitude of the unaccounted for water loss (2008 figures)was 16% of the annual water production of 2.2 billion gallons per year. Mr. McCaleb noted that the American Waterworks Assn claimed that a 10% loss was their guideline. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Jordan that the water loss was due to a variety of factors. He mentioned that there was a certain allowance for water loss in good practices, given that one could not have completely tight water lines. He agreed with Mr. McCaleb that the data collection challenges made it difficult for staff to identify how much water was being used. Mr. McCaleb concurred with Councilor Jordan that, without better data collection methods, the City would not know what its baseline was to be able to evaluate its performance in the future. Mayor Hoffman indicated that the unaccounted for water loss amounted to one million gallons of water a day. He asked where the City could invest its financial resources to try to save water. Mr. McCaleb commented that the first step was to do an audit in order to identify where the discrepancies lay. Once staff knew what the low-hanging fruit was, they should find it easy to prioritize projects based on that. He reiterated that right now there were so many factors affecting the issue that staff did not have a good handle on the water loss problem. Ms. Duncan indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that staff has requested funding for a water audit in FY 2010/2011. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 8:22 p.m. 3.3 Planning Commission Infill Recommendations Philip Stewart, Planning Commission Chair, and Ralph Tahran, Infill Task Force Chair, were present. Mr. Egner reviewed the trends affecting infill in Lake Oswego. He mentioned that Lake Oswego averaged 70 to 100 single-family building permits a year for the past 10 years. He indicated that Lake Oswego had an average median age older than the region, a larger average household size, a greater average income, and greater average new home values. He noted that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) drove infill as an issue in all communities in the region. He explained that, in Lake Oswego, infill tended to build larger(higher value) homes because of the higher land values; a 4,000 square foot new house was very noticeable in an established neighborhood with 2,000 square foot houses. This led to size and scale conflict issues and a major concern that, if repeated, these minor compatibility concerns would become a serious problem in the community. He recalled the Council's appointment of the first Infill Task Force in 2000 and the hiring of Ron Collette, a professor from the University of Oregon, to develop infill concepts that addressed house size and the relationship of houses to the street and neighboring properties. He mentioned the Council reforming the Infill Task Force in 2005 to deal with issues that came up in the intervening City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 March 9, 2010 years, to complete unfinished business, and to help draft code language to implement the recommended standards. He reviewed the remainder of the infill timeline (p.9). He described the Task Force process as involving a diverse membership split between neighborhood representatives and development interests. He indicated that the 10 to 12 active members met 50 times over the three years, and used a consensus-driven process with help from Ron Colette. He mentioned that design review (an issue not listed in the Task Force's charge statement) had been the one issue that took up the most time. It focused on how to address big houses. He reviewed the 2003 infill amendments, which served as the baseline for the Second Infill Task Force's work. He explained how the concept of`floor area ratio' tied floor area to lot size using a sliding scale based on the actual lot size but with different ratios for each zone based on building height. He mentioned the change in the way that staff measured building height (switching from measuring to the midpoint of the roof to the top of the roof). He discussed the successful change of establishing a front setback plane. He mentioned limiting the amount of garage that could occupy the front of the house to 50%. He described the variations allowed on the sidewall planes. He indicated that the themes that drove the work of the Second Infill Task Force were looking at citywide standards versus neighborhood level standards, house size, house-to-house relationships, and fine-tuning technical adjustments to build in some flexibility. He mentioned that the Task Force felt that fine-tuning at the neighborhood level should occur through neighborhood planning. He reviewed the Task Force recommendations. He referenced the policy change regarding overlay zones (p.13). He indicated that design review had been the most contentious issue discussed by the Task Force and the Planning Commission, with the Task Force recommending it, and the Planning Commission not recommending it (p.10). He noted that they never answered the question of how design review would work, although they discussed several possible thresholds for pushing a house design into design review, such as two- story homes, 80%+ maximum floor area, lots less than minimum size for zone, and smaller setbacks. He spoke of the concern that a design review process would add cost, time, and complications to an already complicated process. He discussed the changes to lot coverage and maximum floor area regulations (p.13-14). He mentioned that the Planning Commission reduced the amount of lot coverage recommended by the Infill Task Force to create a lower-scale house. He explained that the proposed formula smoothed out the transitions in the floor area calculations. He indicated that the Planning Commission recommended reductions in house size, while the Task Force felt that design-related issues affected compatibility more than house size. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that a two-story home was generally 22 to 24 feet high. Chair Tahran commented that it was difficult to build a two-story home at 22 feet. Mr. Egner discussed the changes to the setback planes (pp.14-15), intended to push the bulk of the house toward the center of the lot and minimize its impact on the street. He noted the changes to side yard setbacks to add flexibility while maintaining compatibility (p.15). He mentioned the recommendations to break up the long walls of buildings (p.14) He discussed the additional flexibility built into the Code with respect to sloped lots (pp.15-16). He mentioned that the Planning Commission had liked the Task Force's recommendation to make an adjustment on First Addition sloped lots for greater flexibility and applied it to the other residential zones as well. He mentioned his expectation that the Council would hear testimony on the Residential Infill Design (RID) Review process, as he has heard concerns from people involved in the Lake Corporation regarding the proposed adjustments (p.16). He noted the changes to the variance City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 March 9, 2010 process (pp.16-17) and to non-conforming structures to allow remodeling and reconstruction within the same footprint without full compliance to the Code (p.17). He discussed the issue of flag lots and serial partitions (pp.17-18). He mentioned that both the Planning Commission and the Infill Task Force wanted to set up a better way of encouraging infill development than the flag lot standards in the current code allowed. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the connecting access lane could be either a public or a private street. At Mayor Hoffman's request, he reviewed the recommendations regarding garages and maximum floor area calculations (p.14), which included garages in the calculation but added square footage to allow for it. Mayor Hoffman observed that the issue was not increased density but rather increased structures. He indicated that they were trying to address the issue with attainable housing and cluster housing. He observed that putting more people in the same sized structure made sense and was more efficient. He pointed out that the only kind of lots left in Lake Oswego were the sloped lots. He noted that neighbor complaints drove many of these changes. He commented that the first Infill Task Force tackled the easy part, and the second Task Force the more difficult and challenging issues. Councilor Moncrieff mentioned hearing from remodelers/builders concerned that these changes would hurt their ability to redevelop in Lake Oswego because, with the high cost of land here, they needed to build a sufficiently large house to get a return on their investment that was worth their while. She cited an example she heard that Lake Oswego might become like Ladd's Addition where the infill restrictions were so tight, that remodeling and redevelopment simply stopped. She asked if the developers on the Infill Task Force concurred with all these recommendations. She asked if the split on the RID question split down the line of neighbors versus developers. Mr. Egner indicated that Chair Stewart and Chair Tahran were both architects who supported most of the proposals. He commented that he thought some of the items added for flexibility would make it easier for some builders. He acknowledged the builders' concern about a design review process, which he explained was a different process than the staff level RID process. Chair Stewart recalled that the builders during the public hearing had been very nervous about design review, and the Planning Commission agreed with them. He asked what the specific issues were of those who spoke to Councilor Moncrieff. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that the main fear was the square footage per lot size, with the lakefront as a separate issue. She recalled that the Palisades Neighborhood Plan recommended a lakefront overlay zone because lakefront property was completely different. She commented that she was sympathetic to the builders' concerns regarding square footage on lakefront properties. Chair Tahran recalled that the Task Force did end up on two sides of the fence on the size issue, although he did not think it was a major issue for either side. He commented that they reached a decent compromise on floor area ratios. He described the side yard setbacks and height calculations as huge issues. He mentioned that he went through the RID process on a couple of houses and was able to prove that his design, while not meeting the Code requirements, was a better solution for the neighborhood, particularly on Lakefront Road. He argued that Lake Oswego was not about meeting Code requirements but rather it was about unique neighborhoods; breaking the Code reinforced the charm of Lake Oswego. He indicated that the proposed changes to lot coverage and height calculations would make the process easier and more efficient, and reduce the number of RID applications. He agreed that lot coverage was the major issue, noting that allowing more flexibility in height also increased lot coverage. He pointed out that the current Code requirements reinforced teardowns because they were so difficult to meet with a remodel, which was a concern to both the Historic Resources City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 March 9, 2010 Advisory Board and remodelers. He stated that they came up with a good compromise and clear direction on how to reinforce remodeling instead of teardowns. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he did like the old RID process better. He confirmed to the Councilor that these changes would still allow 7,000 to 8,000 square foot homes. Councilor Hennagin asked what the justification was for not requiring those whose homes were destroyed to rebuild in compliance with the Code. Mr. Egner mentioned that staff had never strongly supported that provision. He explained that the intent of the language was to help home remodeling. He observed that this was an easier standard to write than to create a complicated standard with certain thresholds for how much of the house had to remain. Chair Stewart explained that the current code allowed a complete rebuild of a house through a series of major remodels. He recalled that it was difficult to figure out whether the City wanted to prevent that, and if so, how to prevent it. He described this provision as a way to accept that it could happen. Chair Tahran mentioned that there had been instances where a major fire did not destroy a house completely, yet a remodel would exceed 50% of the current home value, and thus, it would have to meet all Code requirements under the current Code. He commented that that used to mean only Building Code requirements but somehow it expanded to include land use and Development Code requirements. Sometimes meeting the current Code requirements was impossible, which meant a teardown instead of a remodel. Councilor Jordan explained that she was trying to understand if these Code changes helped the City with both affordable housing and maintaining neighborhood compatibility. She mentioned some neighbors in Lake Grove who had looked at the original proposed Lake Grove overlay zone and realized that it was so restrictive that they could not build a stock house. She commented that having to hire an architect was not a way to keep a house affordable. She asked if these changes added more layers that would hinder the City's future interest in how the Council would like to see the city grow and evolve overtime. Mr. Egner said that the majority of changes added flexibility but some standards might effect house design and possibly add cost, such as the side yard plane standard. He recalled that the 2003 changes did add cost, but argued that these proposed changes helped in terms of affordable housing. Chair Tahran disagreed with Mr. Egner. He argued that complicating the structures added cost. He commented that the Task Force had split down the fence line on whether the changes were worth the added cost. He agreed that the changes did add flexibility. He agreed that from Infill 1 to Infill 2, they probably did not add a significant cost, but they did not reduce anything either. Chair Stewart commented that the issue of affordable housing versus the high cost of land was a bigger picture issue beyond infill. Councilor Jordan argued that land costs would stay the same, no matter what they did. Therefore, the only way to get affordable housing was to increase the density on the land (e.g., a six-plex instead of a single-family home). She asked if the spot zoning in the neighborhood overlays created areas for denser, affordable housing. She asked how they would manage the aesthetics and building standards to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood while still providing density. Chair Tahran agreed with Chair Stewart that this issue went beyond infill, and related directly to density. He recalled that, while the Council had not asked the Task Force to consider this question, it came up repeatedly, especially in the context of Douglas Circle and the homes under construction there that were twice the size of the existing homes. He mentioned their discussion of the idea of building two smaller homes on one large lot, but noted that most on the Task Force had not thought it was a good idea. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 March 9, 2010 Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Jordan that there was a significant cost to the RID process now. Councilor Jordan reiterated her concern that it seemed to her that they were doing nothing but adding layers of cost, which did not necessarily maintain the charm of and quality of life in Lake Oswego. She commented that her house had a flag driveway on either side, but her setbacks were predicated on the theory of houses next to her house, rather than a driveway. Councilor Tierney thanked Councilors Moncrieff and Jordan for asking many fundamental questions in terms of whether anyone would want to build in Lake Oswego or live in the homes built here. Mr. Egner indicated to the Councilor that infill applied to any lot in the city. Councilor Tierney asked why the Planning Commission recommended slightly smaller homes on lots than the Task Force recommended. Chair Stewart recalled an overarching concern related to the perception of scale, particularly human scale; a smaller home would mitigate the impact on the streetscape. He commented that, even though there was a range of technical differences in the figures allowed, the resulting houses looked pretty much the same to the human eye. He said that it came down to how to address scale and massing; successful larger houses broke up their scale into more individual parts. Chair Stewart concurred with the statement that good design could cover many issues, as did Chair Tahran. Chair Tahran commented that there were just as many badly designed small homes, as there were badly designed large homes. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Olson that the Council would receive hard copies of the slide presentation. He indicated to Chair Stewart that all of the documentation was online. Councilor Olson asked why the infill process did not change the new height from starting at 22 feet to 24 feet, if 22 feet was a difficult height. Mr. Egner explained that 22 feet was the threshold for 35% lot coverage; above that there was a sliding scale of increasing height to lower lot coverage. Chair Tahran said that a number of Infill Task Force members suggested starting with 24 feet but they were outvoted. He indicated that the graph Mr. Egner showed, while not precisely what he wanted, was a good step forward. Councilor Olson asked if the Task Force and Planning Commission intent, with respect to the flat lots, was specifically to connect the streets. She characterized that as a street connectivity issue, rather than an infill issue. Chair Tahran concurred and indicated that the street connectivity was a byproduct of their access lane discussion. Mr. Egner confirmed that the intent had been to create local connections, rather than cut-throughs. He indicated to the Councilor that it was a design issue, as there were ways to discourage cut through traffic. Chair Tahran pointed out that there were few neighborhoods that could do these access lanes. Mr. Egner recalled that the Lake Forest people had agreed with the idea of pedestrian connections through large tree groves. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that the market forces of the economy and an aging population were converging to create a demand for smaller homes. He commented that Infill 3 might address density issues and large structures with two or three living units within them. He asked how long it would take the City to process Code and zone changes to facilitate this trend in Lake Oswego. Mr. Egner spoke of including those key questions as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Council could take the issue on independently of the Comprehensive Plan, set it as a priority, and appoint a task force. Mayor Hoffman asked, given the changing demographics and demand, if Douglas Circle would happen again in their lifetimes. He asked if anyone compared the most recent Urban Land Institute (ULI) trends report to what Lake Oswego was doing. Chair Tahran indicated that, while he has read a number of other publications, he has not read the ULI report. Chair Tahran commented that Douglas Circle could happen again. He explained that the builders on Douglas Circle did not partition their lots to the extent that they could have because, at the time, the demand, the land costs, and the lenders virtually mandated a 3,500 to 3,800 square foot City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 March 9, 2010 house. He observed that, while dividing the lots in to three lots instead of two lots and building 2,000 square foot homes on them might have been more compact, it also would have been foreign to the existing Douglas Circle character. Mr. Egner commented that almost all the infill standards dealt with the compatibility of one house next to another house; the standards did not look at density or land division issues. He indicated that the Code and infill standards would allow smaller homes. He remarked that he did not know whether there would be a demand for larger homes again. Councilor Jordan referenced a study of Lake Grove conducted by the University of Oregon years ago, which found that because of the height and age of the trees, the height and size of homes was not an issue in creating compatibility in the neighborhood. She commented that the tall trees on Douglas Circle had the same effect in lessening the feel of the new homes as 'new development.' She pointed out that people had built basements in order to add to the square footage of a home without affecting the floor area ratio as a way to get the large home size they wanted. She questioned whether these proposals would change anything in First Addition if the economy picked up, because the City still exempted basements from the floor area ratio and the land costs would be the same. In order to get the value out of a single-family house, the builders would still increase the square footage with a basement. She commented that, as people moved from larger to smaller homes, volume would make them feel more comfortable in the smaller home, which meant high ceilings. She held that they had a problem if they restricted the height of a house at a point where it was not a break-even point for lot coverage area. She suggested considering Councilor Olson's comment about starting at a 24 foot height as a way to add more volume and lessen the crowded feeling. Councilor Olson speculated that if they ever saw large homes again, it would be in Lake Oswego because of the demographics and the prices. Councilor Olson asked Chair Stewart to discuss why the Planning Commission did not recommend the Task Force's recommendation to increase height on steeply sloped lots from 35 feet to as much as 45 feet with certain conditions and design standards. Chair Stewart indicated that the concern focused on bulk and scale. He pointed out that lots sloping up from the street, as opposed to down from the street, left the high portion of a house facing the street. Chair Tahran mentioned that 35 to 45 feet added a story, which was the measurement. Mr. Egner presented slides of a case study in Mountain Park to discuss this issue of height on sloped lots. He noted the standard of increasing one foot in height for every three percent of slope. He explained how the new standard built essentially the same house but allowed more floor area at the main floor. He mentioned that staff had seen a few requests for more floor area on the main floor, but not a lot. Chair Tahran commented that the Task Force took it on because they realized that Palisades had many of these situations, and, given its age, it was the most likely candidate for remodels. Councilor Moncrieff commented that, while these changes did a great job of addressing visual compatibility from a neighborhood standpoint, she wanted to ensure that Lake Oswego had housing stock diversity in size, style, and price. She cited Palisades as an excellent example with its variety of homes from the large homes in Atherton Heights and the 1950s cottages on large lots on Fernwood. She mentioned that young families with three to five kids were moving into the larger homes in her 1980s neighborhood, Tolkien Heights. She spoke to also considering the effect on surface water and sensitive lands of expanding the footprint on the lot. She asked if the Code retained the flexibility with the Resource Conservation and Resource Protection areas to shift the house in order to preserve the resource. Mr. Egner indicated that the Building Code standards did not allow building in such a way as to increase runoff from your site to damage another property. He said that a builder would build an underground storage facility out of which the runoff percolated. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 March 9, 2010 Chair Tahran commented that the underground storage facility did wonders for storm water treatment. He mentioned that he has always supported moving homes closer to the street as a way to reduce the front yard lawn. He pointed out that the consequently deeper rear yard increased privacy and allowed more room for these storm water facilities. He confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that the standards pushed the bulk of the house more to the center and shifted the mass away from the property line. Councilor Hennagin asked whether the Task Force or the Planning Commission discussed putting houses on sloped lots on stilts as a means of reducing the mass. Chair Stewart recalled that there had been a proposal to require enclosing the currently allowed open area of a house on stilts, but the Commission decided to leave it open rather than increase the perceived bulk of the house. 3.4 Street Maintenance Fee Discussion Mayor Hoffman referenced the e-mail sent to the Council by Mr. McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre indicated his understanding that the Council wanted a three-phase approach (with indexing for inflation) to implement the street maintenance fee. He asked what the percentage of each phase should be. He mentioned that this was not a `changing the methodology' discussion, which was a completely different question. He reminded the Council that whatever direction it gave tonight, it could change on March 23. Councilors Hennagin and Johnson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that they supported the three- phase approach. Councilor Tierney characterized this as deliberating on e-mails, something that the Mayor has cautioned the Council to avoid. He commented that no one has asked him by e- mail or in person what his views were on the street maintenance fee. Councilor Tierney stated that he believed in street maintenance and achieving a 70 PCI. He questioned where the $1.2 million needed to reach that goal should come from. He argued that there were other opportunities besides the street maintenance fee to fund it. He contended that this was a budget discussion, and not a rate discussion. He expressed his discomfort with discussing this issue via e-mails. Councilor Moncrieff said that she was comfortable with the council discussion, given the amount of public outreach and public discussion in which the Council has engaged. She mentioned the business community's feedback (the group hit hardest by this increase) that they saw value in doubling the fee, that the street maintenance fee was the appropriate place to pay, and that they would appreciate recognition of the difficult economic times with a phased in approach. She stated that her conversations with the business community found that a tiered doubling of the fee over three years and indexed to inflation was acceptable. Mayor Hoffman commented that he heard that also from the business community. Councilor Olson described Councilor Tierney's point as street maintenance was a basic service that the taxpayers expected the City to pay(much like police, fire, and parks), yet the City has singled out street maintenance for a fee. She argued that, given the other revenue streams available, the cost did not have to all come from a fee increase. She said that she could support splitting the difference with a smaller increase and new money coming in from the cost allocations to the General Fund. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that previously the City had declared the street system a utility,just as the water, sewer, and surface water systems were utilities. He explained that utilities were typically self-funded by fees; however, the only utility not self-funded was the Street Fund. He emphasized that the street maintenance fee was only one component of the revenues going into the Street Fund; the other two were gas tax monies and General Fund monies (specifically part of the PGE franchise fee that went into the General Fund). He stated that the Street Fund was out of money. He indicated that he would be happy to explain to the Council members one-on-one the complicated accounting explanation. He pointed out that City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 March 9, 2010 the Street Fund had to pay the General Fund for cost allocation. He emphasized that the Street Fund needed some form of dedicated revenue. He explained that the consequence was either a lesser investment in the street system or a lesser investment in some other General Fund service because its funds went into the Street Fund. He acknowledged to Councilor Olson that the gas tax and the franchise fees were a dedicated source of funds. He explained that the Street Fund paid for a great deal more than asphalt, such as crosswalks, traffic signals, and plants. Councilor Johnson concurred with Mr. McIntyre that it was important to have revenue stability in paying for street maintenance. She commented that a later discussion could be how the City funded street maintenance. She advocated for moving forward with the street maintenance fee now. She observed that a phased in approach was important if the Council decided later on to change how it funded things, as that change might mean not implementing the third year increase. Councilor Moncrieff commented that a utility fee provided stability for projects and planning not available with the General Fund. Councilor Jordan recalled that, prior to implementing the street maintenance fee, the City paid for street maintenance out of the General Fund. She explained that the reason behind the street maintenance fee proposal had been the City's inability to maintain the streets at the rate needed without added funds. She observed that many other communities were also instituting street maintenance fees because there were more road projects than anyone had money to do. She pointed out that without a stable, dedicated revenue source, the City could not compete with other cities for matching funds from other agencies. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Council, and not a public vote, had implemented the street maintenance fee. Mr. McIntyre mentioned that the public voted on a GO bond issue to bring the street system up to a certain level, which led to the discovery of the need for a street maintenance fee. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that there was no prohibition against putting General Fund money into a utility fund. Councilor Tierney argued that the issue was a policy decision, as both the police and fire departments were funded by the General Fund, yet they had stable funding. He indicated that doubling something caused him great consternation. He wondered whether the policy decision was deciding what the City could afford to do and what did it then do. He disagreed that the Council has sufficiently discussed the funding priorities to move forward with doubling a fee now. Councilor Hennagin commented that Councilor Tierney made some good points. Mr. Mclntyr indicated to the Councilor that the Street Fund was a $2.4 million fund with $1.2 million coming from the street maintenance fee, $500,000 coming from the PGE franchise fee in the General Fund, and the balance from the State gas tax. Councilor Jordan noted that they would see the vehicle registration fee increase in 2010 and the gas tax increase in 2011. However, because people were using less gas, the gas tax revenue has gone down. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City fixed the PGE franchise fee and could raise it. Councilor Tierney explained that the City could charge up to 5%; the additional 1.5% beyond the current rate of 3.5% would be listed separately on the bill. Mr. Powell observed that virtually all franchises passed through their franchise fee to the customer. He pointed out that once the PGE franchise fee went into the General Fund, the Council was not obligated to allocate it to street maintenance. Mr. McIntyre explained that the historical Council policy (adopted in 1996) has been to allocate $500,000 of the PGE fund to the streets as a way of funding streets. He emphasized that this was a Council policy and not a requirement by the State, PGE, or the City Charter. He confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the additional money from the registration fee for 2010 would be just shy of $300,000. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 March 9, 2010 Mr. McIntyre pointed out that he had not intended the discussion tonight to focus on the merits of the policy, but rather on what staff should bring back for Council discussion on March 23. He commented that staff has made a compelling argument of the need; the question was whether the street maintenance fee was the right source for those funds. He observed that it went back to the trade offs question. Mayor Hoffman described the adoption of the street maintenance fee in 2004 as a covenant with the community to dedicate a road maintenance fee for road maintenance. He recalled that the issue was thoroughly vetted in the community at the time. He stated his understanding that the majority of the Council thought it fair to double the fee, and that the issue was the phasing. Councilor Tierney asked why all previous Councils had been reluctant to increase the fee (even index it) if the community made a commitment to the fee. He referenced Mr. Graham's presentation that the Council lowered the PCI from 80 to 70 rather than increase the fee. Councilor Jordan explained that the cost of maintaining streets went up exponentially after the City implemented the fee, but the City had lacked the staff needed to keep track of what was going on. Eventually, staff informed the Council of the significantly reduced buying power of the street maintenance fee. The Council decided to reduce the overall level of quality in the streets in order to make up the difference, and to index the fee for a one-time increase. She noted Councilor Hennagin's dislike of automatic annual adjustments as a self-feeding mechanism. Therefore, the Council, since most of the members were leaving, decided to let each Council make its own decision about increasing the fee. Councilor Johnson mentioned the desire for a collaborative process and further discussions with the business community as another factor. Councilor Moncrieff recalled that, at the Chamber Intergovernmental Affairs meeting that she attended with several staff members, the question was asked what the trade off was if the City used General Fund money. The same question came up at the open house. In both instances, no one wanted to trade off anything; they wanted the money to come from the street maintenance fee. She explained that she was comfortable with using the street maintenance fee as the mechanism because the community has indicated that they did not want to give up baseline services. Councilor Olson said that neither she nor Councilor Tierney disagreed that the Council needed to spend money on street maintenance. She explained that her issue was that the Council has done nothing but raise fees since they were sworn in a year ago, and she was sick of it. Ms. Kirk mentioned that the business community preferred a ramping up approach, with the first year being the lowest year. She explained that businesses were dealing with changes and unusual expenses this year due to the two statewide measures that passed and unemployment tax changes. She indicated their preference for the 25-35-40 three year phase in. She recalled that the business community asked, at the meeting referenced by Councilor Moncrieff, if the government could provide a match in making this investment. The fee would then increase over time with the government's investment decreasing. She indicated that, given what they have heard in these tradeoff discussions, she did not think that was possible. She pointed out that a phased approach did not terminate the budget policy and priority discussions within the first and second years. She noted that everyone agreed that there was a need; they did not want to delay street maintenance itself, but only the implementation of the fee increase based on its impact to the businesses and residents. Mayor Hoffman noted that the majority of Council members were nodding their heads in agreement with the 25-35-40 phased in approach on a doubled street maintenance fee. Councilor Tierney recalled Mr. Graham's statement that putting money into the streets this year was better than putting money into the streets in year 3. He asked to include the use of the reserve fund in the discussion, as the Chamber representative had suggested doing so. Mr. McIntyre indicated that they could do so, although the Council has never authorized him to use the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 March 9, 2010 _ reserves for these purposes. Councilor Tierney suggested taking advantage of the window of opportunity in public bidding. Ms. Kirk mentioned that the City of Tigard had a new, interesting approach to indexing in which it balanced construction and labor costs, and capped it at 2% and 7%. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff could provide two proposals, one for doubling the fee over three years, and a second for indexing it at the end of three years. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 Robyn hristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 0 20 20Il Jack . offman, ayo City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 March 9, 2010