Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-03-30 SpecialCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 30, 2010 Mayor Jack-1,)ffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:35 pmil- )n March 30, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson (6:39), 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; Guy Graham, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Anthony Hooper, Management Analyst; Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Manag r 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Federal Legislative Update Mayor Hoffman explained that they were using Skype to speak with Chris Giglio, Capital Edge, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Kirk indicated that this was the staff quarterly update on the lobbying work done by Capital Edge at the federal level on behalf of the City. She spoke of the excellent working relationship that City staff had with Capital Edge. Mr. Giglio commented that, following Capital Edge's visit to Lake Oswego last November, they have worked with staff to identify federal funding opportunities from which the City could benefit. He described the Congressional system of `earmarking' funds for specific projects, which Congress has scaled back in recent years. He indicated that they found two opportunities within the Congressional earmarks, for which they have submitted request forms to the Lake Oswego congressional delegation. These were $300,000 for Foothills planning from HUD and $550.000 for wastewater line rehabilitation from EPA. He indicated that the process was now at the point of the congressional delegations deciding which of the numerous requests received from across the state to submit to the House and Senate Appropriation Committees for consideration. He mentioned that the visits by Mayor Hoffman in February and Councilor Tierney in March helped Capital Edge's advocacy for these projects by making strong cases to the congressional delegation about the importance of these two projects and how they fit within the larger goals of the community. He reported that Rep. Schrader has made requests to the House Appropriations Committee for both projects, while Senators Wyden and Merkley have made requests to the Senate Appropriations Committee for the wastewater project. However, today was the deadline for Senate submissions for the HUD budget, and they did not yet know whether the Oregon Senators made this request. He indicated that they expected to know in June or July whether the House budget bills included the Lake Oswego projects. However, the Senate had a slower process with results expected in the fall. He mentioned that many observers did not expect the final 2011 budget (hammered out in Conference committee) completed until after the fall election. He discussed the other issues on which Capital Edge has been working with the City. These included convincing Congress that local governments would be a good vehicle for managing the funding in the pending Jobs bill, identifying competitive grant opportunities, and providing staff support for City officials visiting Washington, D.C. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 March 30, 2010 COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Tierney asked what the Council could do in terms of helping the lobbying effort on the earmarked requests. Mr. Giglio suggested making contact with the congressional delegation when they were in town and emphasizing the importance of these two projects with the local staff. Councilor Jordan expressed her appreciation for Capital Edge's work on these projects and on transportation issues. She asked Mr. Giglio to keep in contact with Ms. Kirk regarding opportunities for federal funding for the arts, citing Lake Oswego's strong local arts program. Mr. Giglio mentioned competitive funding for local arts progra als from the National Endowment for the Arts, some arts funding included in the stimulus bill, and a little bit of money in National Park Service programs that could potentially help local arts. Mayor Hoffman asked Mr. Giglio to comment on the importance of the City keeping in contact with the local congressional staff. Mr. Giglio indicated that doing so was very important, as the Senators and Representative relied heavily on their local staffs to keep them informed on local issues, including prioritization of the projects submitted for the earmarked funds. He commented that educating the local staff on the Lake Oswego projects could only help the cause. Mr. Giglio indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he and Ms. Kirk discussed the question of which was the better strategy: keeping the requests down to a certain number or asking for everything possible. He said that they decided that focusing on one or two City priorities would send a message to the congressional delegation that these few projects were important, and that the City intended to complete them. He explained that Congress liked projects that had a significant amount of local contribution, and projects that it could finish, as opposed to projects that it could start. Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the wastewater rehabilitation request was For collector sewer lines in neighborhoods. 3.2 Electric Vehicle presentation by PGE Councilor Tierney introduced Joe Barra, PGE Director of Customer Energy Resources. He mentioned that he asked Mr. Barra to speak to the Council on electric vehicles and their public policy implications for local governments. Mr. Barra gave a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the history of PGE and electric vehicles, which spanned 100 years. Most recently, PGE has been working with hybrid vehicles. He presented statistics about Oregon's population distribution, with 70% of its 3.7 million living along the 1-5 corridor. He mentioned that PGE had a green customer base with 10% of its residential customers paying a premium for renewable power. Oregon, as the No. 2 state in the country for hybrid ownership per capita, had over 500 electric vehicles already. He presented photos of current electric vehicles from Mitsubishi and Nissan. He explained that Oregon's intergovernmental collaborative approach drew manufacturers to the state. He mentioned the Governor's Executive Order for Alternative Fuels and the Oregon Way Advisory Group as helping with this collaborative approach. He indicated that the urban growth boundary (UGB) and the compact urban form also helped because these electric vehicles initially had a range of around 100 miles (Portland was approximately 40 miles by 35 miles with most round trips around 40 miles). He cited local governments' commitment to sustainability and the residential green customer base as other attractive factors. He mentioned that four electric vehicle manufacturers have already started up in the state, and as well as charging station manufacturers looking to locate in Oregon. He recounted how the Urban Sustainability Conference in Portland in July 2008, to which Toyota brought its plug-in hybrid and PGE its charging stations, led to a memo of understanding with Nissan to introduce its Leaf hybrid in Portland as the lead market, and to another memo of understanding with Mitsubishi. He mentioned that Oregon was one of the five markets selected by E -Tech for its $100 million grant program for charging stations. Fie indicated that E -Tech intended City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 March 30, 2010 to invest $20 million in installing 2,000 charging stations in Oregon, half in homes, and half in public places. He observed that this program would make things happen much more quickly than PGE had anticipated. He indicated that E -Tech would begin installation of the charging stations in the third quarter of this year. He noted Nissan's intention to introduce its Leaf this December, and the competition from Mitsubishi and Daimler. He spoke of Navistar's panel truck that PGE expected to put into service soon, and of Smith's light duty cherry picker that PGE intended to use for lamp work. He speculated that Toye;,, would likely enter the market following the introduction of the Nissan Leaf. He mentioned PG;--- talks with General Motors and Ford about their hybrid vehicles. He explained that PGE was worKing to bring electric vehicles into the market in response to customer needs. Therefore, the company made sure that it was involved in the planning and getting the work done right. He discussed charging stations as a natural fit to PGE's core business. He indicated that, given the expected rapid expansion, PGE was looking into owning Level 3 charging stations in the public right-of-ways, in addition to those it already owned on its own property. He explained that it took 48 hours for a full charge at a Level 2 station (240v) and half an hour for an 80% charge at a Level 3 station (480v). He presented a map showing the locations of their 20 charging stations. He mentioned the Oregon vision of establishing Oregon (particularly the Portland area) as a launch site for test e -vehicles and as the lead markets. He discussed getting the infrastructure in place before the vehicles arrived. He reported that PGE was working closely with E -Tech on where to locate the charging stations coming under its $100 million federal grant. He commented that Oregon had good data on vehicle usage, which would give them a !eg up in putting stations in the right places. He indicated that PGE was talking to customers about fleets and helping manufacturers understand the potential for fleet purchases. He noted the educational efforts underway with 0 - Track and PSU. Mr. Barra finished his presentation. He indicated that the conversation at PGE currently was what its role would be in moving forward. He mentioned their desire to avoid the lengthy time that it tock to get charging stations in place in New Jersey after owners purchased e -vehicles. He noted that Nissan intended to pre-screen potential purchasers to make sure that they had a reasonable location for a charging station. He speculated that households with attached garages would purchase e -vehicles as a second car, but they would quickly switch over to the a -car as the primary vehicle. He reported that PGE was also talking with E -Tech about coordinating the deployment of the charging stations. He indicated that one would be in every purchaser's home, where 80% to 90% of the charging would occur. He speculated that drivers would initially use the public charging stations lightly. The stations would function primarily as a safety net and assurance that customers could get a charge if necessary. He commented that, since most public stations would be Level 2 (taking four hours), they intended to locate them near locations where people typically parked for four hours, such as movie theaters, malls, and park and rides. He discussed locating Level 3 charging stations in between Seattle and Portland or Eugene and Portland as a way to extend e -vehicle usage. He mentioned talking with British Columbia about creating a corridor up and down the northwest to accommodate e -vehicles. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Barra confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that Lake Oswego's current charging station was 110v only but its wiring allowed an upgrade to 220v. He mentioned that earlier this year, the Society of Automotive Engineers standardized the Level 2 charging plug 1220v/240v). He indicated that, while he thought it unlikely that PGE would charge a fee to use the public stations in City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 March 30, 2010 the immediate future, he did think that, in the long term, charging stations would charge a credit card for the session length. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a Level 1 charger (110v) in a home would take a full day for a full charge; a Level 2 charger would take three to six hours. He confirmed that e -vehicle owners would need to add a 240v line to their garages for the more practical Level 2 charger, although all chargers would be equipped with 110v for emergencies. He described how an e - vehicle owner could get a Level 2 charger installed inexpensively with tax credits or free if he/she par-;c:pated in E-Tech's data collection program. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that one company has looked into a changer sharing the dryer circuit on an alternating basis, but it would require a panel upgrade. He confirmed that an e - vehicle owner had to have a charger in his/her garage, and not just a 2.40v outlet. He mentioned that the Nissan car would be able to log all the data and that the car owner could program a charge at will. He explained that, from PGE's perspective, it was important that owners charged their vehicles at night during off-peak usage (when the system had plenty of capacity) in order to avoid straining the system during peak usage. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that, given that PGE power came approximately 40% from coal and use of electricity still contributed to greenhouse emissions. He asked how PGE matched the electric vehicle with green power. Mr. Barra expressed PGE's appreciation for Lake Oswego's support of its green power program. He mentioned that the charging station outside used renewable power. He explained that PGE's system mix was 35/40% coal, 35/40% natural gas, and 20/25% hydro. He indicated their expectation to move away from coal in the future, noting the proposal to phase out the coal plant by 2020. Mr. Barra observed that e -vehicles with their high-capacity batteries provided an opportunity to store the large amounts of electricity generated by the wind at night. He speculated that, in 10 years, the batteries might become stout enough to feed electricity back into the system to get the grid through a rough spot. He described e -vehicles as complementing the system well and working with renewable energy, which could be intermittent. He discussed their exploration of using e -vehicle batteries, which would last for five to ten years and still have 80% of their potential left, as second life batteries stored in the garage and available as a backup system for a house and storage for the utility for use in taking load off the line. Councilor Jordan asked how PGE would plan a grid pattern to put charging stations in the right locations in Foothills and other redevelopment areas. She asked whether PGE would have charging stations that could charge multiple cars in a parking garage. Mr. Barra indicated that currently charging stations could handle only two cars, but they could install them in series with a smart head unit. He said that PGE would love to work with City on a plan for mixed-use development. Mr. Barra noted that many of PGE's greener customers lived in areas in Portland without suitable locations for an in-home charger. PGE would have to work with cities in locating charging stations in public places. He observed that it was cheaper to install the appropriate electrical connections in a parking garage at the time of construction as opposed to installing them after the fact. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not think that Level 3 charging stations would ever be located in homes. Councilor Tierney asked if there were any zoning issues with regards to locating these charging stations in the public right-of-way. Mr. Barra speculated that PGE would handle charging stations in the public right-of-way similarly to the three options used with streetlights: PGE owned, maintained, and provided electricity to streetlights, PGE maintained and provided electricity, or PGE provided electricity. He noted that PGE was already in the right-of-way and that municipalities were unlikely to want to see a mix of manufacturers in the public right-of-way. Mr. Barra confirmed to Councilor Moncri ff that nighttime electricity teas more likely to be wind - generated electricity, as there was more wind at night than there was during the day. He indicated City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 March 30, 2010 that he could not say that night electricity was greener than day electricity because the coal plant ran flat, and the percentage of power used skewed more towards the coal plant. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that day charging was more of a safety net. He recounted an example from Tokyo. It was not until the city put some charging stations outside of the downtown loop that people began to drive their e -vehicles outside the loop. However, the people did not use those charging stations; all that mattered was that the charging stations were available, should they get stuck. He commented that the stimulus money allowed this capital investment during the initial period of light usage; once there were suffi, :int e -vehicles on the road; these more distant charging stations would see more use. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he would be happy to inform the City when e -vehicles were in town for viewing by the public. 3.3 Community Attitudes Survey 2010 Ms. Kirk asked the Council for feedback on the survey, as revised per earlier Council feedback. Martha DeLong, Campbell DeLong Resources, reviewed the proposed timeline for the survey. She mentioned starting with a pre-test early next week, followed by the phone interviews. She indicated their desire to be out of data collection by April 18 in order to avoid calling in conjunction with the upcoming primary election. She spoke of a report to Council by mid to late May. Councilor Johnson commented that she thought that the changes looked good, but she had another question that she would like to add. She observed that, while the Council has discussed setting as a priority attracting families and young professionals to Lake Oswego, it has never established that doing so was a priority for the community. She indicated that she thought putting "The City should attract families and young professionals to move to Lake Oswego" on the survey made more sense than asking the question through the Open City Hall. Councilor Jordan questioned what kind of information the Council would gain from that question without follow-up questions, since it sounded like a money issue. Councilor Johnson indicated that she saw all the questions on the survey as resource or money questions. She argued that the Council needed a gauge on whether this was important to the people or not before it discussed methods for achieving it. Councilor Hennagin expressed his preference for 'young individuals' over `young professionals.' Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was comfortable with `young families.' Ms. DeLong indicated to Councilor Tierney that this was the eighth Lake Oswego survey, conducted roughly every two years. She confirmed that they tracked trends over time by asking many of the same questions each time, such as overall satisfaction with local government. Mr. McIntyre wondered whether the survey respondents would be aware of the fact that Lake Oswego was an aging community, and that perhaps the City should be doing something to try to balance that demographic. Councilor Johnson confirmed that this was an awareness question. Ms. DeLong pointed out that `are you aware that the community is aging' was a leading question. Ms. Kirk asked if Councilor Johnson wanted to find out if there was an importance in having younger families and individuals in Lake Oswego or if the City should be doing something about it. Councilor Johnson reiterated that all the survey questions were City resource questions. Councilor Jordan concurred, Councilor Jordan pointed out that the questions were also factors over which the City had some control. She noted that the City did not control the cost of housing or many factors that might attract young families. She held that the City could only control how it advertised itself in promoting attractive factors, such as the schools, safety, and recreational activities. She commented that she did not think that this kind of survey got into the resource questions of housing stock, etc. Mayor Hoffman argued that governments, by regulating where people lived, also regulated how expensive houses and land were. He described it as directly proportional and related to zoning. A City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18 March 30, 2010 city could zone for lower priced housing, such as cluster housing, or higher priced housing, such as the great house. Councilor Johnson observed that there were many ways that the City could attract young people that did not include housing, such as a dynamic downtown or jobs nearby. She contended that inter -related factors, as opposed to a single factor like lower housing prices, would attract young people. She spoke of setting a goal of attracting young people. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she understood Councilor Johnson's comments because she too wanted Lake Osw :;_,o to be an attractive community for young professionals and families. Z!:,le pointed out that the rating services question on p.4 included senior services and activities but not schools, nightlife, a vibrant business/retail district, or other elements that would attract young professionals and young families. The Council agreed on the wording of `The City should look for ways to attract young individuals and families to move to Lake Oswego.' Councilor Tierney indicated to Councilor Olson that he was okay with the wording on Question 9 #3, on page 6. Ms. DeLong indicated to Councilor Olson that they included trend information in the survey report. Ms. DeLong mentioned talking with the Fire Chief and deciding to change the wording from `fire services' to `fire and rescue services.' 3.4 Review of Capital Improvement Plan Mr. Graham indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he could supplement his Clackamas River memo about the low flows when the new data came in about the new snow pack. Mr. Graham noted that this was the second annual update of the capital improvement plan (CIP) coordinated by the Public Works Department. He reviewed the update process with a public open house and a Planning Commission discussion and public hearing. He reported that the Planning Commission found the CIP in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Commission had some comments primarily related to formatting and visual layout suggestions. He indicated that the Planning Commission also asked for clarification on projects shown in multiple areas, and that the document include the stimulus fund projects. He mentioned that staff would not include the Royce Way and McNary Parkway road project, as staff would complete that by June 30. He clarified that the stimulus funds did not come directly to the City; those funds were received and disbursed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). He explained that the staff would complete the blank pages in the draft document for the final version, once the Budget Committee has solidified the funding. He mentioned that they were waiting to print the final version until then in order to save on staff and printing costs. He reviewed the changes in this year's CIP from last year's CIP (p.6). He gave special recognition to Erica Rooney, Nancy Fiye, Donna Broadhurst, and Melissa Olsen for their work on the CIP. He commented that staff would continue to refine the CIP over time with the goal of providing a document of enhanced clarity, transparency, and utility for the Council to use in its decision-making process regarding future capital improvement projects. He observed that the CIP would also help the ratepayers and taxpayers better understand how capital investment decisions impacted the types and levels of City services provided. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Tierney commented that the CIP project evaluation criteria on p.16 were very thorough. He asked if staff could show the scoring system used correlating the criteria to each project. Mr. Graham indicated that staff was developing such a scoring system and hoped to bring it to Council City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 March 30, 2010 in the fall for input on it. Councilor Moncrieff asked to include the sustainability lens in a scoring system (CIP, p.17-18). Mayor Hoffman remarked that this was something that a Council subcommittee could work with staff on developing. Councilor Tierney asked why the tennis facility and golf course were not on the Parks & Recreation list on p. 24. Mr. Graham indicated that he would check with Ms. Gilmer and report back. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that the water main rehabilitation program (p.120) was an ongoing program in which the City annually rehabilitated old ,,,ater lines in the street (water distribution system) that were failing or wearing out. Ms. Rooney clay ified that the number of rehabilitation projects done each year (site-specific projects pulled out of the Water Master Plan) would generally stay the same. Mr. Graham commented that the condition assessments would help staff to determine when to do which pipes and to link the CIP funding for infrastructure replacements to the City's financial rate models in order to avoid future `rate shocks.' Councilor Tierney commented that the introductory narrative to the Surface Water Management section (p.137) failed to mention that the Council adopted a surface water management plan (Clean Streams Plan) this year. Ms. Rooney agreed that staff needed to update the section. She indicated that staff did include projects from the Clean Streams Plan in the CIP. Councilor Tierney asked that staff use the same nomenclature and titles in the CIP that they used in the Clean Streams Plan, as he could not correlate the capital items of the two plans. Councilor Tierney commented that the funding for utility projects seemed to be in good shape but the funding for general fund projects was not. The CIP included projects with costs 10 plus times the amount of funding available. He questioned whether including these projects relayed expectations to the public that the City could not meet. He noted in particular the $3.8 million worth of street maintenance projects and the doubling of the fee to $240,000. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the City needed to know what the deficiencies were in facilities before it could address them. He described the CIP as a reminder to himself as the City Manager and the Council as policy makers that they needed to figure out what to do about it. He commented that in recent years the City has not been investing adequately in its public buildings for their upkeep. He acknowledged that much of that had to do with competing interests for limited funds. He remarked that it was his job to provide the Council with a recommendation on how to shift more resources towards facilities' upkeep. Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Olson that staff requested funding last spring for the Westlake Park picnic shelter, and not the East Waluga Park picnic shelter (p.28). Councilor Olson asked why there was only $200,000 in the annual pavement preservation program when the Council just increased the fee for a $1.6 million budget next year (p.40). Mr. McIntyre explained that staff did not include the increased budget because the CIP document came out before Council decided to increase the fee, and it would have been presumptuous to give a dollar figure. He said that the budget would reflect the higher investment in the streets resulting from the increased street maintenance fee. He indicated that they were shifting $400,000 from projects that the City would not be doing to asphalt for the streets. He mentioned that the Street Fund has become a catch all to pay for many other types of services; staff was re -working the mechanics of the fund in order to focus it more on the kinds of street utility work expected by the Council. Councilor Olson asked where the other $1 million was of the $1.2 million street maintenance fee funds prior to the increase. She recalled staff telling her that the gas tax money and DMV fees went to beautification and other street projects. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that the money went for other projects and not for paving. Ms. Rooney clarified to Councilor Olson that the Lake Oswego Transit Center Roadway Rehabilitation project received funding from both LORA and the City. She exoiained that LORA City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 March 30, 2010 only paid for new facilities or upgrades, and not for the rehabilitation or maintenance of existing facilities. Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Olson that the Maintenance facility discussion (p.204) should reflect the fact that the Maintenance facility was a Council goal. Councilor Olson noted that there were a series of editing errors from p. 209 on. She indicated that she would go over them with Ms. Rooney. Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Olsen that the transit project summary (p.115) was a placeholder to give the Council a sanse'::f the magnitude of the investment. He indicated that he did not believe that TriMet's repayment of the Lake Oswego loan would reduce the dollar amount listed for the City's contribution to the project. Councilor Jordan concurred with Councilor Tierney that the document did not detail the criteria and prioritization methodology that staff used in scheduling the projects for each year. Mr. Graham reiterated his intent to work with the Finance Department to develop the financial models that would help clarify that process. Councilor Jordan argued that if taking City projects through the hoops of the City's development review process added to the cost of those projects, then the City was not doing its citizens justice. Mr. McIntyre commented that staff was finding out firsthand how challenging the City's process has been for citizens. He indicated that the application process represented one-third of the cost of the original capital investment. He said that this was wiry staff was trying to streamline the process while still keeping it a quality process. Councilor Olson asked if the Boards, such as TAB (Transportation Advisory Board) or PRAB (Parks & Recreation Advisory Board), provided input on prioritizing projects. Mr. Graham mentioned that PRAB looked at the parks but he did not know what level of involvement TAB had. He indicated that Mr. Hooper would coordinate the public engagement effort to obtain community input in an efficient manner that kept the process moving forward. He encouraged the Council to continue to provide feedback on the CIP document as it evolved. Councilor Olson commented that she would appreciate input from TAB regarding future pathway and roadway expenditures. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan about the need to streamline the City's process. She agreed that whatever cost the City more money cost the citizens more money because the City was the taxpayers. She encouraged staff to get the ranking system up and running, as an empirically -based ranking system would be helpful in handling emotional pleas from citizens during the budget process. She commented that it would be helpful for citizens to see where their project requests fit into the priorities of the overall picture. She suggested sharing the list with Ms. Kirk and the Washington, D.C., lobbyists in case there was anything in the five-year plan for which the City could seek appropriations and potentially need matching funds. She described the CIP as a helpful tool, especially in seeing what was coming down the road. Ms. Rooney indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff would provide the Council with a final CIP document following the budget process but before the budget adoption. Councilor Tierney remarked that they needed to include the builders, developers, and citizens in addition to the City when discussing the City's development review process and the added burden it could put on a project. Councilor Olson asked to put the e-mail received today regarding the Lakeridge tennis courts in the hopper for consideration. Councilor Moncrieff commented that part of the reason for the criteria and ranking methodology was to look at various citizen requests, such as the dog park, and evaluate their priority in terms of all the needs citywide. Mayor Hoffman discussed his frustration with CIP projects as placeholders, which the City pushed from year to year and never built. Fie agreed with Councilor Olson that they needed more City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 March 30, 2010 involvement from the Boards and Commissions because these projects would never be funded. He commented that he did not know what the answer was but he thought that there had to be a better way of doing it. He spoke to finding some mechanism to get the CIP document out to the community with the explanation that this document was how the City identified the issues. The question then before the community was, if the citizens agreed with the project list, were they willing to tax themselves to build the projects. He reiterated that he did not know where they would get the money, since Parks & Rec and p-A:iways used general fund money. Mr. Graham minted out that, in addition to building costs, a project had operations/ maintenance and replacement/renewal costs. He reiterated that staff's goal was to provide the Council with the best tools possible to make the tough decisions and to explain to its constituents why the City chose one project over another. Councilor Olson commented that the CIP would be more helpful once staff fully implemented the City's ranking system and included the selection criteria in the document. Mayor Hoffman observed that either staff or the Boards and Commissions could develop a ranking system. He spoke of having a conversation about whether any infrastructure projects rose to the level of justifying a utility rate increase. Otherwise, the projects were just placeholders. Councilor Tierney pointed out that the general fund items were the placeholders, as opposed to the utility fund projects. He commented that the utility funds did a reasonable job of re -investing the funds. Mayor Hoffman remarked that an interesting community discussion would be whether the community wanted to fund those general fund projects in the next five to ten years, and how to do it. Councilor Olson suggested holding that conversation with the Budget Committee at some point in time. Councilor Hennagin spoke in support of Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion to have the lobbyists look at the CIP to see if there were any projects suitable for federal programs. Councilor Jordan discussed LIDs (local improvement districts) as possible funding mechanisms for neighborhood pathways. Mayor Hoffman agreed with discussing different funding options for pathways. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 3.5 Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan Mayor Hoffman explained that he wanted the Council to have a good understanding of the basics of the Comprehensive Plan, to stay informed with respect to the Comprehensive Plan work, and to stay ahead of the other groups once staff's public engagement process started. • Land Use Planning and Regulations in Oregon Mayor Hoffman stated that property law was about human relationships; its basis was British property law going back to the Magna Carta. Zoning law began in the United States in 1919 with numerous regulatory takings and court cases from the 1930s through the 1990s. He explained that Senate Bill 100 (SB100) was the genesis of Oregon land use planning. The legislature passed it in March 1973 at the behest of Hector McPherson, the father of land use planning, who was concerned about urban sprawl. He indicated that SB100 set out the hierarchical structure of land use planning, beginning with goals, followed by plans, regulations, and actions in subordinate order. The 19 standards set by the legislature in the 1970s became the statewide goals, which all comprehensive plans had to include per state statute. Comprehensive plans were the basis of all local regulations. He discussed the major changes that came with ORS Chapter 197, the driver behind all local statutes. The State required all cities and counties in Oregon to develop a Comprehensive Plan City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18 March 30, 2010 and submit it to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for approval. Once approved (called the acknowledgment), all local community regulations had to match that community's Comprehensive Plan. Any regulatory changes to the Comprehensive Plan required a post -acknowledgment plan amendment from LCDC, which verified the amendment's consistency with the statewide goals. He explained that an action was making a decision on a given issue. The State required that all actions comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that the State required jurisdictions to provide a 45 -day comment period on any amendments to 11he Comprehensive Plan, as amendments meant changing the land use constitution of :ria city. He discussed the periodic review process, which the State required each jurisdiction to go through every five to ten years in order to keep its Comprehensive Plan reflective of the changing city. LCDC reviewed the revised Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that if the State developed a new rule, such as the Transportation Planning Rule, then the jurisdictions had to amend their Comprehensive Plans to follow that rule in order to maintain consistency with the statewide goals. He reviewed the elements of periodic review, including reviewing the plans and ordinances, actively involving the citizens, developing a work plan, and assessing the community to identify any needed changes to the Plan. He mentioned the 45 -day notice to DLCD (Department of Land Conservation and Development). He reviewed the 19 statewide goals, mentioning the steps involved in the ones that related to Lake Oswego. These were Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Planning), Goal 3 (Farmland), Goal 4 (Forest Land), Goal 5 (Natural Resources), Goal 6 (Air, Water, Land), Goal 7 (Natural Hazards and Disasters), Goal 8 (Recreation), Goal 9 (Economic Development), Goal 10 (Housing), Goal 11 (Public Service and Facilities), Goal 12 (Transportation), Goal 13 (Energy), Goal 14 (Urbanization), and Goal 15 (Willamette River). He noted that Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) required active citizen involvement throughout the entire planning process. He commented that sustainability was likely to fall under Goal 13 (Energy). He described Goals 9 (Economic Development), 10 (Housing), 11 (Public Services and Facilities), 12 (Transportation), and 14 (Urbanization) as key goals for Lake Oswego. He mentioned the 20 year planning horizon for Goal 9 (Economic Development). He pointed out that population and demographics drove Goal 10 (Housing) in terms of current and future housing needs. He mentioned the Metro Housing Rule and other statutes requiring a mix of 50% attached and 50% detached houses, the use of clear and objective standards in making decisions on housing, and an urban density of 10 units per acre. He indicated that Goal 11 (Public Facilities) required the planning and development of facilities in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. He mentioned the Transportation Planning Rule in conjunction with Goal 12 (Transportation), which required municipalities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage alternate modes of transportation. He noted that the State legislature mandated Metro to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by certain time frames. Goal 12 also recognized the relationship between land use and transportation. He explained that Goal 14 (Urbanization) required a transition between urban and rural areas and separating rural land from urbanizable land. He mentioned that Metro based its UGB decisions on balancing various factors, which was a different process than satisfying the criteria in local land use decisions. He reviewed the history of Metro from its beginnings in the 1970s as the Columbia Regional Association of Governments (CRAG) to its 1990 charter and its birth in 1993. He explained that State statutes set Metro's authority and purview over land use, transportation, solid waste, and any matter of regional concern. He noted that Metro's Regional Framework Plan and Functional Plan served as its Comprehensive Plan and statutes respectively. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 March 30, 2010 • Lak Osw go Compr hensiv Plan Mayor Hoffman indicated that the public engagement process for the periodic review would be similar to the one used for the 1994 Plan. He noted that the Plan updates adopted after 1994 were all post -acknowledgement plan amendments approved by LCDC. He described the Comprehensive Plan as the City's land use constitution. He pointed out that the Table of Contents showed the basic architecture of the Plan. He reviewed the history of the original 1978 Plan, as discussed in the preface (p.1). He directed the Councilors to read the Plan introduction f.-- - a good foundation in the direction that the Plan set for the community. He emphasized that the Plan provided policies, and not specific standards for development. The Zoning and Development Codes provided the specific standards and procedures. Misunderstanding this distinction led to frustration on the citizens' part. He described Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) as an important foundational goal. He indicated that, during the periodic review process, the City would reach out to more of the community than the Planning Commission and a Citizen Review Committee. He spoke of getting the word out to the citizens that the Lake Oswego's land use system belonged to the people, and not to the City or to the staff. He described the Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) section as providing a good Land Use 101 text for how land use planning worked in the City. He highlighted items, such as the requirement for densities appropriate to the scale and character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods Section 2.1.2) and the summary of major issues (Section 2.1.3). He observed that, since Lake Oswego has remained `mostly developed' since 1994, the elements important in 1994 would be equally important in 2010. He commented that Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Historic, and Natural Areas) would be important when the Council considered the Second Look Task Force Report and the information received from Lake Oswego Stewards and other citizen groups. He noted that Section 3 (Wetlands) discussed the 1975 and 1992 physical resources inventories. He reviewed the policy in Section 4 (Stream Corridors) to protect, restore, and maintain stream corridors. He mentioned that he expected to see policies for a citywide watershed council put in this section. He referenced the policy of enacting and enforcing standards and development regulations, which the City would have to change if it went to an all -voluntary program. He commented that if what came out of the Second Look Task Force was different from the Comprehensive Plan policies, then the City would have to work on those changes during periodic review. He reviewed Section 5 (Sensitive Lands), noting the policy of the City protecting, enhancing, and maintaining the wooded character and natural features of Lake Oswego. He pointed out the history of the sensitive lands program (Section 5.5.2). He mentioned the policy discussion about supplementing the Sensitive Lands Atlas (Section 5.5.3). He commented that staff had been trying to update the Atlas per the policy. He noted the policy of no net loss (Section 5.5.4). He mentioned that staff would add the various open space bond measures since 1990 to Section 6 (Open Spaces). He indicated that any policies emphasizing open space management would go here, such as eliminating ivy in City open spaces. He commented that he was not certain why Section 7 (Oswego Lake) was in the Plan. He noted the policy of exploring ways to remove the sanitary sewer lines from Oswego Lake, which prior Councils did explore. Mr. Egner pointed out that such items were recommended action measures, and not goals or policies. He described recommended action measures (RAMs) as ideas put in the plan to carry out the policies and other ideas that did not merit policy status. He confirmed to Councilor Olson that RAMs did not carry the same weight as the policies; they were more a set of strategies to carry out the plan than set policies that staff must follow. Mr. Powell noted the description on p. 5 of the introduction detailing the difference between goals, policies, and RAMs. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18 March 30, 2010 Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Section 8 (Historic Resources) included the furnace, the worker's cottage, and the head gate. He indicated that he would put sustainability under Goal 6 (Air, Water, and Land Resources). He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the Council, as an informed group of seven citizens, could make suggestions to staff regarding the goals, policies, and RAMs in the Comprehensive Plan, which staff would then take to the citizen Boards and Commissions. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff hoped to put a better timeframe on the RAMs & ging the re -draft of the Plan as a way to indicate that these were actions at the City was serious about carrying out. Mayor Hoffman commented that, in the conversation with staff, Boards & Commissions, and other citizens, the Council could bring forward elements that the citizens have mentioned, such as the quality of life indicators Mayor Hoffman continued his review of Goal 6 (Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality). He indicated that a serious conversation about solid waste management would begin with Goal 6, Section 3. He explained that Goal 6, Section 4 (Sound Quality) dealt with privacy issues and keeping the houses from being close to each other with side yard setbacks. He discussed Goal 7 (Natural Disasters and Hazards), noting the many flood hazards listed in Section 1. He pointed out that Section 2 (Earthquake Hazards) was cross-referenced with Goal 11 (Public Facilities). He moved on to Goal 8 (Parks & Recreation), mentioning the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. He noted that pathways came in under both Goal 8 and Goal 12 (Transportation). He speculated that a future community goal, if the community decided that it was serious about funding Parks & Rec capital improvements, would be to explore future bonding. He mentioned Goal 9 (Economic Development), which included the history of the business districts and PUDs. He noted the possibility of a change in the preference not to have a downtown with a regional draw, given Lakeview Village and Ms. Blackstone's economic development strategy. He discussed Goal 10 (Housing) as an important goal for the community. He noted the issues of attainable housing, infill, and the Metro Housing Rule. He suggested that the Council discuss the basics of Goal 10 with staff, including what did 'protecting the character of existing neighborhoods' mean to the Council. He commented that he thought it would be useful to discuss the policy of providing for needed housing while protecting e;ivironmentally sensitive areas. He mentioned the need to address Section 1 (Public Safety) under Goal 11 (Public Facilities & Services). Mr. McIntyre indicated to the Mayor that he thought the municipal wastewater treatment plant (abandoned in 1962) had been located near Foothills Park. Mayor Hoffman noted the discussion about schools in Section 5. He commented that Goal 12 (Transportation) along with Goal 10 (Housing) and Goal 5 (Natural Resources) were the biggest chapters, as they related to what made Lake Oswego what it was. He mentioned his expectation that the Metro mandate on the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would come under Goal 12. He speculated that Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) would focus on sustainability, although the City would use a sustainability lens in looking at all its goals. He discussed Goal 14 (Urbanization) and the policies about controlling urban sprawl in conjunction with adjacent jurisdictions, and resisting efforts to expand the Urban Services Boundary (USB), especially in Stafford. He noted the discussion about not reducing the quality of life if Lake Oswego was required to expand its USB. He spoke to discussing Section 14.7 (initiating island annexations) in the context of the compact urban form and providing urban services. Tom Coffee explained that the voter -approved annexation for Stafford policy was in the charter and not an amendment in the Plan because technically annexations were legislative, and not land use decisions. Mayor Hoffman suggested discussing whether to include voter annexation in the Comprehensive Plan, and how voter annexation in Stafford affected land use decisions in Stafford. Mayor Hoffman commented that the quality of life indicators (Section 14.9) were a RANI that perhaps should become a policy or a goal. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 March 30, 2010 He confirmed to Councilor Olson that Section 14.5.2 did require new development in an expanded USB to pay the full cost of extending urban services. He remarked that the municipalities in this area and the County have consistently said that private dollars needed to provide the public infrastructure in Stafford because the jurisdictions did not have the money to build it. He commented that some of the reasons why he was comfortable in not joining West Linn with respect to the Stafford challenge were voter -approved annexation and the City policy of not paying for infrastructure. He pointed out that not wanting to impact negatively the existing Lake Oswego neighborhoods of Palisades and McVey :trove the City's position. He recalled that the City had had to do certain thirojs in Foothills Park in order to comply with Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway). He mentioned the special district plans, such as the neighborhood plans. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that including the Palisades Neighborhood Plan and other plans directly into the Comprehensive Plan was part of the updating process. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he wanted to schedule a study session for a discussion with staff about which issues to explore. He indicated that the City would not be doing a Hillsboro -type visioning process but rather follow a process of inventorying the City's existing situation, analyzing where the City would end up if it did nothing, and deciding as a community where it wanted to go. He reviewed the proposed elements in the public engagement process this fall that he and Mr. Egner have discussed. He spoke of having the Planning Commission attend the study session with staff. He mentioned the Boards and Commissions and the public outreach to civic organizations, homeowners associations, and neighborhood associations, asking what the citizens wanted the community to look like in 2030. Periodic Review Mr. Egner directed the Council to the Periodic Review Work Program document in the packet (pp. 17-35). He said that the State had not yet approved it, but would do so upon the City's request. The approval started the three-year clock. He mentioned staff's hope that the State would also provide a grant at the same time to do some additional technical work. He explained that the periodic review program required that the City do only four things: develop a new housing needs analysis, do an economic opportunities analysis, update the Transportation System Plan, and update the Public Facilities Plan. He pointed out that it did not require the desperately needed general update of the Comprehensive Plan or the integration of sustainability into the Plan. He indicated that staff would begin right away talking with the advisory boards about establishing an overall framework for updating all the plans. He explained that staff thought of using the 2008 vision statement (p.35) as a framework, which would provide a foundation for updating all the different City plans. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the first year of the three-year program involved the background work and the framework element, the second year involved discussing the policy alternatives for carrying forward the framework, and the third year involved the Plan adoption and incorporating the Plan language. Mr. Egner clarified to Councilor Tierney that staff was looking at updating the entire Comprehensive Plan, even though the State only required updating four sections. He indicated that there was very good material in the Plan, but the background sections were out of date, and the language did not reflect the sustainability lens that the City was now using. Councilor Tierney suggested that the Council discuss a policy decision on whether to concentrate on the four sections, since that was quicker and cheaper. He questioned what prohibited the City from dealing with sustainability just because it was not in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Egner confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the City could buy itself another year by immediately starting the process recommended by staff to develop the structure of the work, and then, a year from now, asking the State to approve the plan and to start the clock. He commented City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18 March 30, 2010 that the more work that staff could complete before starting the clock, the easier the periodic review should be. Mayor Hoffman commented that if the Council wanted to discuss Councilor Tierney's suggestion, then it needed to do so soon. He argued that there have been enough changes in the last 16 years to warrant a comprehensive update of the Comprehensive Plan, especially since the sections all inter -related. Councilors Olson and Moncrieff indicated that they would like to have that conversation. Mr. Egner indicates ;-, Councilor Moncrieff that staff could provide information on the differ: -re in time and resource allocation for the four sections versus the whole plan. Councilor Olson asked for input from staff on the advisability of both approaches. Mr. Egner commented that updating the four sections comprised the bulk of the work; updating the rest of the plan would be around one-third of a total effort. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that this was a 20 -year document that the City would not revisit for another 10 years. Councilor Tierney argued that that did not preclude the City from revisiting the other sections over time; it just did not have to be within the three-year time frame. 3.6 Stafford Next Steps Mr. McIntyre mentioned his earlier meetings with the West Linn and Tualatin City Managers regarding the Metro designation of Stafford as urban reserves and their discussion of what were the next steps. He noted that West Linn intended to explore legal options to change the proposed urban designation to something else (rural or undesignated). Tualatin has expressed interest in joining that effort, while Lake Oswego has not yet offered its opinion. He indicated that both he and Mr. Powell considered this a major policy decision needing Council discussion. He asked whether the Council wanted to join the West Linn effort to explore legal opportunities to reverse Metro's apparent direction. He raised the issue of unintended consequences. If there were opportunities to reverse the designation legally, was this action limited only to Stafford, or did the cities upset the multi-year Metro process? He asked if the Council wanted to invest in jointly funding a legal analysis to see if such opportunities existed. Tom Coffee (a former Lake Oswego Planning Director now working as a consultant with West Linn) indicated that the cities' next opportunities to object would be continuing their arguments at the Clackamas County and Metro levels, and at the LCDC level. Only if LCDC did not uphold those arguments would the legal action of appealing the decision at the Appeals level come into play. He commented that if the cities wanted the option to appeal, then they had to continue to make arguments until the final land use decision was made. Mr. Powell confirmed that the Council did not need to make a decision about an appeal tonight. He noted that Lake Oswego's position has been that it opposed the designation of Stafford as an urban reserve. He indicated that there were some issues as to whether the record made before the County and Metro when they made their IGA decision automatically became part of the record before each body when changing their Comprehensive or Functional Plans. However, Metro intended to put everything into the record, so Lake Oswego's arguments in opposition would likely be included and carry through. He stated his understanding of West Linn's intent as the city wanted to augment the arguments in the record opposing the designation. He indicated to the Council that it was its decision on whether to join that effort or to conclude that Lake Oswego's position was adequate to carry through or to change its position. He explained that, in order to have standing for an appeal of the final LCDC decision, a jurisdiction had to file an exception to the LCDC staff report and recommendations. Councilor Hennacgin asked what arguments West Linn would make that it has not already made. Mr. Coffee mentioned that the February 21 County staff report to the County Planning Commission made some statements that were not consistent with the record, and that the Commission decided City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 March 30, 2010 not to make a recommendation on Beaver Creek. He said that West Linn planned to attend the County Board's April 21 hearing to restate its arguments before the Planning Commission and to point out that the County's entire record up to December 7 stood against Stafford as urban reserve. He noted that the factors that the County cited were not met for urban reserve, yet the Commission reversed its position on February 25. Mr. Coffee confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the Clackamas County representative on the CORE 4 initially voted against Stafford as urban reserve but then she changed her vote. He clarified that everyone concluded that the 28,000 acres recomme :ded by President Bragdon and Councilor Hosticka was the `magic' number. However, to justify t,.. -,t number, they had to change from a 40 -year projection to a 50 -year projection. He confirmed that an additional issue was the 10,000 acres of foundation farmland in Washington County designated as urban, to which certain interest groups intended to object. He indicated that their objections included their argument that the population assumptions were too broad; a 40 -year projection was fine, and therefore, the number of acres to bring in should be 10,000 acres less. If those groups succeeded at LCDC with the argument that the region did not need to bring in the farmland, then the justification of bringing in Stafford first because the region needed the farmland in Washington County became arguable. Mayor Hoffman agreed with Councilor Hennagin that the development of Stafford depended on a private developer being able to afford to put in the infrastructure, as the cities could not afford to do so. He pointed out that the opponents based their challenge to the inclusion of the Washington County farmland on its status as foundation farmland. However, Stafford was conflicted land. He speculated that LCDC, in looking at the situation from a regional perspective, would conclude that it was better to use the conflicted land for urban purposes and to leave the foundation farmland as rural land. He indicated that one of the two ways to challenge Metro's decision was to challenge a specific site based on it not meeting the factors. However, the use of "factors" as opposed to "criteria" gave LCDC, Metro, and the Counties great discretion in terms of its decision regarding Stafford. He discussed his reasons for not recommending that Lake Oswego join West Linn in this analysis. He commented that West Linn was asking for a not insignificant amount of money, and that money was tight. He said that he did not see a downside to the designation of Stafford as urban reserve because he did not see it becoming urban for 20 to 40 years. He pointed out that the neighboring jurisdictions have clearly told Metro that they did not want the governance or planning of Stafford, nor would they pay for installing the infrastructure. He remarked that unless a developer had several hundred million dollars available, no developer would install the expensive infrastructure either. He mentioned that Lake Oswego had voter -approved annexation for Stafford. He emphasized that an urban reserve designation did not automatically bring the land inside the UGB. He pointed out that, prior to bringing land inside the UGB, Metro required a concept plan for that land approved by the County and the adjacent cities specifying who had governance. He commented that, from his perspective, he thought Lake Oswego could be looking at North Stafford as a way to expand family housing in Lake Oswego, as it was part of the Lake Oswego School District. He indicated that his biggest concern was that, in 20 years, someone could build a development that would generate traffic coming down McVey. He speculated that those cities that wanted the land would cooperate with private developers to develop their areas before Stafford. He mentioned that Metro would revisit urban reserve designations in 20 years anyway. He reminded the Council that land did not come inside the UGB unless the region needed more land for houses and urban development. He speculated that the 3,000 to 4,000 acres that Metro would bring inside the UGB in 2010 and 2011 would be St. Mary's and other areas where the infrastructure was already in place. He pointed out that the region revisited the UGB expansion City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 March 30, 2010 decision every five years. He recalled a point made for some time that, following the establishment of the UGB in 1992/1994, 95% of all development has occurred within the existing UGB. He mentioned an October 14, 2009, 29 -page letter from several state agencies, including DLCD, which strongly supported Stafford as urban reserve and a 40 -year period. He commented that the principles in the IGAs (intergovernmental agreements) signed by the counties and Metro required buy -in from the different cities. Mr. Coffee pointed out that Title 11 of the Functional Plan allowed Metro to add land to the UGB, the concept plan notwithstanding, because Metro could not let a local government hold it up from movir, 3 forward with its charge. Mayor Hoffman reiterated that he did not think that it was in the City's :merest to spend money at this stage. Mr. Coffee indicated to Councilor Olson that technically the next three stages before the County, Metro, and DLCD did not require an attorney. He clarified that the intent at this point was to have an attorney evaluate the legal strategies and prospects for a successful appeal before the cities spent major money on a retainer. Mr. McIntyre reported that $5,000 total (split between the participating jurisdictions) was the amount mentioned during the meetings. Councilor Olson commented that she thought it was money well spent to hire an attorney to do an analysis of their chances of success, if they did end up appealing the decision in the future. She said that she saw no harm in continuing to testify as the process moved forward. They could make their decision later about whether to take any legal action. She mentioned that LCDC was bound to look at the ODOT report, which rated Stafford as the worst of all the areas in all the transportation factors. She pointed out that Metro's population projection figures for Lake Oswego had been 45,000 by 2010, which was not true. She recalled hearing Mayor Hoffman and Mr. McIntyre talk about developing North Stafford with affordable housing. She noted that the water project assumed Stafford. She indicated that, consequently, she had a hard time believing that the City did not want Stafford and would ignore it. Councilor Hennagin agreed with Mayor Hoffman that Stafford was unlikely to develop within the next 30 to 40 years, unless it was around the 1-205 and Stafford Road intersection. He asked, given that Lake Oswego's position was to oppose the urbanization of Stafford, whether participating in augmenting the record would hurt them. He asked if they had to go to outside counsel to do the analysis. Mr. Powell indicated that they did not have to do so, but it would be quite an effort and benefit from in-house counsel coordinating with outside counsel. He said that if the Council wanted him to spend his time on the analysis, he would do so. Councilor Hennagin indicated that, while he was willing to cooperate with their neighbors in augmenting the record, he was not inclined to go so far as the legal analysis. Mayor Hoffman stated his understanding that West Linn was asking for $2500 to hire Jeff Condit to give the jurisdictions an opinion on the their likelihood of prevailing, should LCDC uphold Metro's decision regarding Stafford. He questioned whether the conversation included augmenting the record. Mr. Coffee clarified that the issue was not whether Lake Oswego continued to participate in the process as it moved forward. The issue was the extent to which the Council wanted to participate in the preliminary analysis and the cost to do so. Mr. Powell concurred. He indicated that, should an attorney be hired, he saw the next step as the attorney working to augment the record before Metro and the County. Mr. Powell advised the Council that, if it chose to participate, it would be best if Lake Oswego helped defray West Linn's cost for hiring an attorney in exchange for sharing the information, as opposed to Mr. Condit serving as Lake Oswego's attorney. That way, should the two cities take different approaches further along in the process, Mr. Condit would not face a conflict of interest problem. He commented that it was also best to be upfront with West Linn from the beginning that Lake Oswego wanted to preserve the option of taking a different approach. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 March 30, 2010 Mayor Hoffman phrased the question as whether the Council wanted to pay West Linn $2500 now for a look at the report or wait, let West Linn pay the entire cost, and let someone else share the information with Lake Oswego later on. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the Tualatin City Manager had expressed interest in participating in the analysis but she needed direction from her Council before doing so. Councilor Tierney indicated that he shared Councilor Hennagin's views about maintaining the City's polio,/ and assisting their neighbors. He commented that he too was indifferer.. about whether 5", fford should or should not be urban. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Mayor Hoffman that the City has done enough and made the City's position clear. Councilor Jordan wondered what an analysis of the likelihood of a challenge's success did for the City, as neither a positive nor a negative conclusion would change the City's policy. She commented that testifying at more meetings would not change the policy either. She described the City as being in the position of asserting its ordinance and charter, which the Council would continue to do. Councilor Tierney asked what the history of Lake Oswego's prior involvement was. Mr. Coffee referenced the 72% response in the 2000 survey in favor of the City continuing to oppose the Metro designation of 2,000 acres in Stafford for urbanization with its appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He recalled that the courts reversed Metro's decision, leaving Metro unable to designate urban reserves or move the UGB. Metro tried again in 2002 to take in an area next to Wilsonville, which Wilsonville successfully appealed. Mr. Coffee noted that SB 1011 rewrote the rules to make the factors broader and more defensible in a legal venue. He explained that the reason why the policy makers in West Linn and Tualatin wanted a legal analysis was the question of how far to go in expending public money to oppose something that the citizens have indicated they oppose. He indicated that West Linn, in light of the rewritten rules and the move of this issue from a legislative venue to a political venue, wanted to know whether it was worth the cost of extensive legal proceedings to resist this Metro decision all the way. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he preferred Metro designating the 10,000 acres of foundation farmland in Washington County as rural reserves and leaving Stafford with its urban reserve designation. Mr. Coffee clarified to Councilor Johnson that he did not say that they should keep spending money regardless but rather he said that they should spend a small amount of money to determine whether it was worth spending any more. He commented that the analysis would give the Council a basis for a policy decision as opposed to how the members felt about it tonight. Councilor Johnson emphasized that the City has clearly stated its opposition to urbanizing Stafford. She said that she preferred spending $5,000 and staff time on something else. She argued that leaving Stafford up to the market would address many of the issues because developing the area was cost prohibitive. She stated that it was not a priority for her to get the information back. Mayor Hoffman asked for a show of hands of those in favor of contributing $2500. Only one Councilor raised a hand. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that the Council would need to discuss with staff whether it was necessary to testify at the County hearing on April 21. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 13 March 30, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Robyn dhristie City Recorder APPROVED Bl' T CITY COUNCIL: ON Seber 010 R ger enrfadhn, Cou President City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 March 30, 2010