Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-06-30 SpecialCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 30, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. on Jun 30, 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 3. PUBLIC INPUT 3.1 Public Input on Second Look Task Force Report Mayor Hoffman welcomed everyone to the second of the two evening listening sessions. He mentioned that the City has been engaged in this process since the 1970s. He noted the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2004 that called for protection of Lake Oswego's wooded character and its riparian areas, and the Sensitive Lands Ordinance in 1997/1998. He indicated that the issues involved complying with State law, balancing the protection of private property rights with the protection of the natural resources, recognizing and honoring the commitment in the Comprehensive Plan, and insuring that future generations would appreciate this generation's efforts at stewardship. He mentioned that last night a panel of Lake Oswego citizens presented their perspectives. He reviewed the procedures, testimony time limits, and rules of decorum for the evening that would preserve the Council Chambers as a safe place for public discourse. He commented that the Council's goal was to make people feel comfortable and safe, and to promote an atmosphere of fairness, courtesy, and respect for all differing points of view. • Art Scevola, 1454 Glenmorrie Drive He stated that his land was subject to the Sensitive Lands overlay. He read from a prepared statement. He advocated for delaying or reversing the course of the Council's pre -ordained Sensitive Lands agenda, as that was apparently the overwhelming sentiment of those attending these listening sessions. He recalled a speaker last night who said that he had never heard of the Sensitive Lands program until a couple of weeks ago, but now that he had, he wanted nothing to do with it. He held that this gentleman would be no less outraged than a farmer would be, who grew a crop, only to have the government drive a tractor on to his land and then harvest, load, and drive off with his crop. He argued that that if a private citizen did so, that action would be theft, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under the law. He described the speaker as a 'wax paper taxpayer,' a citizen who, when left alone, was an ordinary citizen who did his fair share and behaved civilly. However, once awakened to the government's proposed theft of his property, he understood that the situation was like wax paper in an oven — a problem that could no longer be ignored. He contended that Lake Oswego was filled with wax paper taxpayers whose rights and properties were also being trampled on by an over -reaching and misguided government. He commented that it was no coincidence that Lake Oswego was a dues paying (with tax dollars) member of ICLEI City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 June 30, 2010 International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), the largest NGO (non-governmental organization) in the United Nation's sustainability Agenda 21. He asked the Council to remember that its first job was to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, and not to eliminate or reduce them. He contended that the slippery slope that they found themselves on today was a direct result of individual rights and freedoms either taken away or substantially diminished by regulations from the radical environmentalists in the EPA and the `nanny -state' legislators in the local, state, and federal governments. He contended that this manner of compliance with Metro was nothing more than a disguised effort to empower some at the expense of others, resulting in greater property restrictions without compensation for the latter and wider control and potential for financial reward for the former. He argued that, as taxpayers in a constitutional republic, they could not let that happen. He reiterated that the Council vote on this measure needed to be delayed. He argued that its restrictions and confiscation of property rights resulted in the loss of control and value. If the City enacted this ordinance, then it needed to compensate for the measured loss of value. He urged everyone in the room and the city to read their rights under the Constitution and to see this for what it was. He pointed out that the ultimate remedy for an abuse of power, such as the taking of rights as presented by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, was voting in November for those who would represent the citizens properly and with the authority and protection of the Constitution that they were sworn to protect and defend. • Carolyne R. Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way She read from a prepared statement. She referenced a statement at a work session last week in the discussion on resource identification that the property owners in the initial identifications done in the early 1990s had had the opportunity to contest their identification. However, most who did contest it did not bring evidence to support an exclusion. She cited a Task Force member's claim that any exclusion would necessarily have to be supported by scientific evidence and expert testimony. She contended that a close examination of the original Metro and City maps clearly suggested that a covert process of exclusion did occur with properties fitting the definition of sensitive lands mysteriously dropping off the list without scientific evidence, expert testimony, or public hearings. She alleged that many of these properties were owned by City staff, Council members, and Commission, Advisory Board, and Task Force members. She cited the exclusion of the property owned by a former City Manager. She indicated that two members of yesterday's citizen panel, possibly four Council members here today, and at least one City staff member present had properties that fit the definition but were not on either the existing or proposed Sensitive Lands designations. She argued that these same lists were being used to take property rights, to harm property values, and to restrict the use of over 1,000 private properties without compensation. She indicated that a list of the excluded properties would be made available to the City soon. She asked, for the purposes of equity and fairness, that, before the Council moved forward, it make transparent whatever process was in effect at the time of these properties' exclusion, and that it make available the scientific evidence and expert testimony to explain why those properties were excluded. She stated her opinion that the creation of the Second Look Task Force and the appointment of its members occurred in a suspicious way. She cited the City Charter's statements setting the duties of the Mayor, noting that the Mayor appointed the members of all City committees, boards, and Commissions at the approval of the Councilors. She pointed out that a staff member, the Director of Planning and Building, chose the Second Look Task Force members, which she saw as a contradiction of the City Charter. She commented that she thought the prohibition of citizen input at the Task Force was a contradiction of Statewide Planning Goal 1. She referenced the reason given as the Task Force City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 June 30, 2010 was a technical advisory committee to the Planning Department, yet the Task Force released its report directly to the City Council. She noted that Statewide Planning Goal required the opportunity for citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process. She argued that when the citizens could not trust leadership and staff to respect citizen rights, and when citizen input was restricted, it followed that a lack of trust would only engender a lack of support for proposed recommendations. • Lou Lauman, 15537 Village Park Court He indicated that, while he has never addressed the Council before, he has followed this entire issue through the Lake Oswego Review and other citizens with whom he has spoken. He pointed out that people lived in their backyards, and not in their front yards. He stated his impression that the Council was trying to create a situation where people could not have patios and decks on their own fee simple property. He described that as draconian and as inappropriate as anything he could imagine. He indicated that, as he watched and read about this issue, he kept wondering why the Council was doing this. He commented that he did not see this happening in other Oregon communities. He characterized hiding behind Metro as a flimsy excuse. He supported the comments on handling the issue through education and environmentally friendly products, such as the sale of lower phosphate washing products. He stated that stepping in and depriving people of the right and pleasure of enjoying their backyard did not make sense to him. He mentioned wondering privately who the Council represented. He urged the Council to bear in mind that the Council members were elected to represent the citizens of Lake Oswego, and not Metro. • Stephanie Wagner, 14494 Uplands Drive She commended the Second Look Task Force for the fantastic job it did in bringing flexibility to the requirements. She mentioned serving as a recorder in the open forum where people shared their views and concerns and the Task Force was looking for possible solutions. She indicated her amazement at how much consideration the Task Force gave to some of those ideas. She stated that her job involved education in natural history and environment. She commented that, notwithstanding the importance of education, she understood the need to set limits for those people who did not want to be educated. She supported the combination of flexibility, education, the City leading by example with its natural spaces, and restrictions for the protection of the quality of life through the protection of their air and water resources. She described the City's view as well balanced and complimented all involved in the process. Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road She indicated that she has had an RP designation on her property for 13 years. She observed that the beauty and function of the natural environment that they prized and the homes and yards of the built environment that they treasured have long been on a collision course. She commented that the most promising signs of change have been the growing number of grass-roots efforts in watershed awareness, sustainability practices, invasive species removal, and site restoration. She argued that those efforts, coupled with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, the CDC draft audit, and the sensitive lands reviews, made this an opportune time to refocus on their shared environmental responsibilities. She argued that the City could no longer assume that the rhetoric of compliance by regulation was sufficient: the City must lead by example. She spoke of fulfilling its responsibilities with watershed - based, achievable goals in the Comprehensive Plan, a clear, concise, and well -organized CDC, community -wide best practices for the preservation and protection of natural resources, and the funding for restoration of degraded public natural areas. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 June 30, 2010 She contended that residents could no longer assume that the regulated 10% of private property owners were solely responsible for the health of the environment: each resident must fulfill his/her responsibilities, use best practices to improve the shared watersheds, improve onsite water retention capabilities, improve habitat by planting native trees and plants, as well as volunteer, contribute, and advocate for the restoration of natural areas. She urged the Council, despite the unresolved policy issues in the Task Force report, to move forward promptly with the recommended code changes in order to insure that the residents with issues today did not have to wait for future Comprehensive or CDC considerations. She commented that the community benefited daily from voluntary stewardship on both public and private lands. She referenced her handout showing how the watershed concept had the potential to coalesce neighbors around the issue of water quality improvement. She mentioned that four neighboring Uplands property owners volunteered to undertake a resource enhancement demonstration project to stabilize and restore a healthy stream function to their shared stream corridor. She explained that the upstream urbanization with an outfall pipe draining 33 developed acres created the erosion. Their hope was to encourage similar projects community wide and to increase voluntary stewardship by all residents. • Larry Latuszek, 1286 Larch Street He indicated that his three-quarter acre property showed 50% green on the Sensitive Lands map. He stated that he was not interested in subdividing his property for development. He expressed his appreciation for the strong views presented last night. He agreed with those who insisted that many people did not know about sensitive lands and its ramifications. He commented that listening to the Task Force last week reminded him of a quote from the Lake Oswego School Superintendent: "There's no right way to do the wrong thing." He observed that the references to `community values' seemed to go back to a legacy made years ago. He used an analogy of all people raising their hands in response to the question of do you want to go to heaven, and dropping them at the follow-up question of who wants to go now. He commented that all community members valued trees, clean air, and the environment, but they wanted the government to pick someone else, or they wanted to live next to a sensitive lands owner for personal benefit while leaving it to the sensitive lands owner to pay the taxes and the insurance and to deal with the maintenance issues. He argued that if the City mandated what private citizens could do on their own land, then its job should include the maintenance, removal, and replanting of trees in Lake Oswego. He stated that he loved living in Lake Oswego in spite of the regulations, and not because of them. He asked how well the regulations have worked so far. He referenced his experience with finding that his new property purchased in 2002 was covered with ivy and invasive plants. It took him the rest of the year to clean it up, which he did on his own incentive in order to accomplish his vision of a woodsy backyard. Finding out about the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and its restrictions was a de -motivator for him in working on his property. He pointed out that the Mayor and the Council were the leadership of the community. He noted that motivational speakers usually said that a leader should lead by example and expect the best of people. He commented that they all knew that the City has not led by example since the Ordinance went into effect. He speculated that the City leadership must have been expecting the worst from people. He suggested putting a moratorium on this punitive ordinance and seriously considering a new approach to meeting community values, one that did not hurt property rights and property owners. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 June 30, 2010 • Bob Eidson, 14825 Rainbow Drive He held that they were faced with two decisions, one negative and one positive. He discussed the negative first. He commented that it was clear that the in imposing the Sensitive Lands Ordinance on a selected community, the City was selecting out a group to use their properties as examples on how to manage sensitive lands. He recalled the testimony by three individuals at a meeting some months ago. A realtor indicated that, based on her 25 years of experience, this ordinance would depreciate property. A builder said that he would bypass any land with sensitive lands as too risky. A property owner reported that all three offers that he has had on his property backed away once they discovered that the City had a Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He discussed the alternative suggested by the Audubon representative yesterday that the City compensate property owners affected by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, such as paying their property taxes. He argued that that would give the property owners an incentive to turn from a highly negative position to a more positive one. He held that the outcome of this action would be a positive image of Lake Oswego for those coming in, as realtors could say that, while the City had a Sensitive Lands Ordinance, it also compensated property owners for enduring the designation. • Janine Dunphy, 17151 Canal Circle She mentioned that she has been involved in senior issues for over 15 years as a volunteer and a Board member on several Boards and Commissions. She observed that the City Council has spent a lot of money, time, and energy discussing and promoting affordable housing and aging in place through a variety of forums. However, she never heard the Second Look Task Force, City staff, or the Council focus on the impact of these sensitive lands overlays on citizens, including seniors. She referenced the example given last night by a realtor and her client who did not feel that Lake Oswego was an aging -friendly community. She stated that this was a senior issue. She asked the Council to consider the negative effect that these overlays were having on its desire to create a more aging -friendly community. She argued that the focus of the discussions should be on citizens of all ages, and not on the animals and natural resources. She commented that people were the most important component of a prosperous society. She held that Lake Oswego citizens were capable of continuing to protect their individual properties without increased government intervention. She asked why the police presence and the red -roped off areas. She stated that she has never seen the police in such obvious attendance in all the meetings that she has attended over the years. She said that she and others found the police presence offensive. She asked who was protecting whom from what. She wondered whether their presence was an admission by the Council that it knew these recommendations were the wrong thing to do, especially with the sense of urgency. She asked why the rush. She speculated that perhaps the police should be sitting on the people's side and protecting the citizens from the City, the Council vote, and the City staff enforcers, none of whom had overlays on their property. Priscilla Panichello, 3000 Stonebridge Way She told the story of her family's homestead property in lower Glenmorrie, which has been in her family since before 1950. She described how she and her husband began buying portions of the homestead from the family. She noted that they could not have purchased the properties without breaking up the homestead because it was too much acreage and the taxes were too high on the property as a whole. She indicated that her children wanted to live in Glenmorrie also. She mentioned her willingness a year and a half ago to let the City put a sewer down one side of her property to serve the homes on Stonebridge, even though she already had sewer from an installation 35 years ago. She pointed out that she could have refused to grant the sewer easement but she had been willing to give it. She asked the Council to give the property owners City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 June 30, 2010 some rights so that they could willingly cooperate in a way that they felt comfortable and not have the property taken. • Marcia Kies, 1628 Lake Front Road She stated that she did not have a Sensitive Lands overlay although she has been a realtor in Lake Oswego since 1985. She voiced her concern regarding personal property rights and the Sensitive Lands overlay. She addressed the issue of property value from a realtor's perspective. She distributed a handout showing the sale closing of a property at 950 Cumberland Road for $16,000. She indicated that it had had a number of sale fails, and the purchaser who did buy it found restrictions, mitigations costs, etc., to keep reducing the sale price down from the original $120,000. She recalled being told that the studies conducted found that sensitive lands overlays did not affect a property's value, but, based on her experience with already developed properties, the more restrictions placed on the property, the more the buyer concluded that those restrictions would affect his/her enjoyment of the property, and thus its value. She stated that when prospective buyers came in from outside the community, attracted by the great schools and sense of community, and found out about the restrictions or even the potential for restrictions, they ran or devalued the property. • Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court, 40+ year resident He clarified that his remarks were not about the sensitive lands but rather about the Mayor, the Council and the City staff. He recalled encouraging the Mayor to be completely truthful in comments made to the public, and not to say just the part that the City wanted the public to know. He referenced a paper, Economic Benefits of Large Patches of Tree Canopy, written by two college professors, one from Reed College and the other from San Francisco State University, which the City staff suggested supported the City's position that trees increased property value. He read several quotes from p.7 of the paper. He noted the conclusion that the price model indicated that increasing the tree canopy in areas with a small tree canopy would increase the sale price but increasing the canopy in heavily treed areas would decrease the price due to concerns over the already high percentage of tree canopy and the potential of blocking highly desirable views. • Daryl Winand, 825 NE Multnomah Blvd, Portland, Governmental Affairs Specialist, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors (PMAR) He indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the more than 6,400 Association members. He thanked the City staff — Denise Frisbee, Jonna Papafthemiou, and Morgan Holden — for their responsive communications throughout this entire process. He stated that PMAR commended the Council for its adherence to Statewide Planning Goal 1 for citizen involvement. He gave PMAR's recommendation that the Council identify and publish for the benefit of Lake Oswego citizens and the property owners those Task Force recommendations that it would be pursuing, and advise which recommendations it would take as stated or modify in some way. He encouraged the Council to allow public comment for that process before sending any directives to the Planning Commission. He commented that while PMAR appreciated this opportunity for public input, it was impossible for residents, taxpayers, and voters to provide concise input without knowing which Task Force recommendations the Council was supporting or rejecting. Gary Gipson, 19 EI Greco He recalled receiving notification in 1998 that their property had been designated sensitive lands because a sloped and unusable piece of their land lay within the buffer of the watershed behind City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 June 30, 2010 their house, which lay wholly on Mountain Park community property. He expressed their concern that placing that designation on their title would scare off potential buyers. He told the story of how he and his wife woke up to what the sensitive lands designation entailed. He said that he had been eradicating the weeds between his house and the creek for 18 years. In 2003, Mountain Park notified the City that he had cleared the land in the buffer zone. He recalled that at first, City staff was going to make him replant the area, but, upon finding out that it only involved noxious plants, they dropped the matter with the advice that he no longer clear the land. He indicated that he did so, and now the whole creek bed was a mass of ivy, blackberries, poison oak, etc. He commented that, being aware of the negative aspects of the designation, they took notice of the damage that could occur to property owners with larger portions of affected land. He stated that they were sympathetic to Lake Oswego Stewards and others adamant in combating the overlays. He recalled meeting with Mayor Hoffman to discuss concerns regarding several matters before the Council that they believed were economically detrimental to Lake Oswego residents. He indicated that he specifically suggested that a court could rule the City liable to sensitive lands property owners for the devaluation of their lands, and thus, expose the City to considerable financial obligation. He reported that the Mayor informed them that the designations were made by an unbiased professional using commonly accepted criteria, and therefore, were not arbitrary or capricious. He commented that, since that meeting, they have read of allegations that certain properties that appeared to meet the criteria have escaped designation. He noted that the innuendo was that it was due to the property owners having some connections with the City. He mentioned that they have seen no refutation of these allegations. He referenced Councilor Moncrieff's comment last week that she could not distinguish between her undesignated property and some of her neighbors. He commented that if the Councilors were questioning the criteria, then all the citizens should question it. He mentioned that most citizens still did not understand the reasons behind not designating properties on Oswego Lake or the Willamette River as sensitive lands. He argued that, before the Council vote took place, the individual in charge of designating the overlays needed to provide testimony or an affidavit certifying that she received no coercion from any party regarding the designation of properties, and relate what instructions she received in addition to the designation criteria. He pointed out that she would have to do so when the sensitive lands issue was challenged in a court of law. He contended that one deviation from the criteria, and the designations could obligate the City to everyone negatively affected in the past. He asked the Council to protect their property and their pocketbooks. Dave Luck, 26 Del Prado He mentioned being struck by the opening remarks at this meeting with the repeated references to everybody feeling safe. He commented that he would be curious to know if the audience members felt unsafe or if the Council members did. He compared it to liberal politicians characterizing the Tea Party movement as an unruly and violent mob. He said that, while he was not a Tea Party member, he saw an interesting corollary here. He remarked that, as much as a large number of people in the city did not like what the Council was doing, and a fair number might not like the Council members personally, he has never heard anybody suggest that the Mayor or the Councilors were unsafe. He cited the Mayor's repeated references to respect. He argued that one of the things coming out of these meetings was the total lack of respect shown to the property owners of the city. He recalled the references by the Task Force to the HAS characterization and the criteria. He mentioned the Mayor's visit to his property, at which time he pointed out to the Mayor that his neighbor's backyard, enclosed by a six-foot fence and covered in lawn and concrete, was City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 June 30, 2010 designated as sensitive lands habitat under the HAS score. He asked that someone explain that to him. He observed that that sort of situation reinforced the idea that the designations were capricious, arbitrary, and done on an aerial photo with someone's felt tip pen. He referenced a comment made by an early speaker that the Task Force brought some flexibility to the process, and the comment made just a bit ago that the Task Force has not brought anything to the process that the Council has acknowledged would become part of anything. He contended that, until the Task Force recommendations translated into real change, the Task Force has not brought anything to the party. • Jonathan Snell, 3250 Upper Drive He commented that it was a good idea to inventory the community's natural resources and to find a way to insure that they continue to provide valuable functions to the community, both today and for the generations to follow, because it was in the community's best interests to do so. He held that the Comprehensive Plan, in expressing the community's values, clearly articulated that. He argued that to roll back tree grove or riparian protections would conflict with the current Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that he had served on the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) in 1997 during the development of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He recalled that, at the time, he saw a fundamental irony in that property owners who severely degraded the resources on their land in the past would not experience the encumbrance of an environmental zoning overlay, while the real stewards of the land would do so because of their stewardship. He pointed out that the resources were where they were. He expressed his gratitude to the real land stewards of Lake Oswego and their land management efforts that benefited their neighbors at no cost to the neighbors. He commented that the current great recession has been traced to a dysfunctional dynamic summarized as "privatization of profit and socialization of cost." He contended that the tragedy of the Commons clearly articulated that each person acting in his/her own selfish interest with respect to the degradation of the common natural resources resulted in a downward degrading spiral of natural resource value to the detriment of all. He discussed the potential for an equally dysfunctional inverse of "the privatization of cost and the socialization of benefit." He observed that, taken in isolation, one could consider the Sensitive Lands Ordinance to do this. He contended that it was this grain of truth that some used to fan the flames of fear, noting that it was easier to scare people than to educate them. He argued that a holistic assessment showed that there was a multitude of programs funded by all citizens that supported the healthy functioning of the community's underappreciated greenfrastructure. He stated that there was no solution to the fundamental irony other than by implementing the second part of the concept to protect the best and restore the rest. He stated that the Sensitive Lands Ordinance in its current or proposed form was not the mechanism to achieve this goal. He contended that it required a watershed -based approach to natural resource management. He spoke in support of the Task Force's first recommendation category that the City must lead by example. He referenced the second recommendation in that category regarding a program for the long-term maintenance of sensitive lands on private property. He commented that, while the overlays protected the mapped Sensitive Lands on paper, on the ground they were actively degrading. He cited the unmanaged non-native invasive plant problem assaulting the tree groves, the active erosion of stream channels, and the phosphorous laden sediment going into the streams and lake. He argued that the City needed to develop the skills, techniques, and methodologies to manage its publicly owned natural areas, and then offer those services to willing property owners. He held that the community would respond well to the effort and it would build good will. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 June 30, 2010 Mayor Hoffman invited those reading from prepared statements to submit their written comments to Ms. Christie, if they so desired. • Diana Boom, PO Box 328, Lake Oswego She thanked the City for the Second Look Task Force, although she was sorry that it took a mass movement to make it happen. She said that she found the report format clear and understandable with a good coverage of the areas and clear recommendations. She commented that the two points that she saw as most important, after the science, were property rights and self-regulation versus regulation by government. She indicated that she thought private property rights were very important, yet the community was part of a natural system. She argued that society could not survive without protecting the natural resources and wildlife because they were all dependent upon each other. She commented that self-regulation worked until it did not work. She indicated that it was up to the government to make sure that there were laws and regulations in place to protect natural resources and wildlife. She urged the Council to approve the report and recommendations in order to insure both the survival of nature and the quality of life gained from it. • John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace He mentioned that he has lived for 30 years in this house designed by Richard Sundeleaf. He explained that his property had been a featured property in an Oregonian article on the Metro Service District's Natural Garden Delights Tour as a demonstration on how to terrace and take care of very steep slopes. He indicated that he and his wife have participated in this program for the last seven years, which was evidence that they conducted good husbandry of the land. He referenced statements made by Task Force members that several private properties around Lake Oswego were haphazardly overlaid in the 1998/1998 timeframe for inclusion on the original Sensitive Lands Ordinance as having an RC upland tree grove. He noted that staff based that action on the older 1990 aerial maps from Metro. He indicated that Task Force members also pointed out that there was a practice to overlay properties adjacent to overlaid publicly owned areas as continuous swaths of land. He mentioned his surprise earlier this year in finding out that his property was on a list of overlay properties. He noted that the list indicated that he did not receive advance notification by the City. He reviewed the two factors used by staff to determine RC upland tree grove overlays: 1) a property with potential for development, and 2) a property with upland tree groves. He stated that his property at Edgecliff Terrace had no upland tree groves on the upper portion of the property and no potential for development. 60% to 70% of the property was an unbuildable steep cliff. He indicated that the overlay zone was at the bottom of the cliff, beginning at the edge of Oswego Lake. He described it as the final 30 feet of the 200 -foot cliff as measured from the lake shoreline. He stated that there were three to four fir trees in the area, widely dispersed and not forming a grove. In addition, there were no streams on the property, as was true of all properties on Edgecliff Terrace. He described the location of Edgecliff Terrace and its seven homes. He noted that in the early 1990s the City used Metro Open Space/Park levy funds to purchase the South Shore Viewpoint (which Edgecliff Terrace sat next to) from the Ann Shucart estate for more than $2 million. He explained that the overlay for the Viewpoint captured the lower parts of the steep cliff of the Edgecliff Terrace privately owned properties. He indicated that this was a swath taking. He stated that he opposed the City's action and asked that the City remove his properties from the 1997/1998 RC zone because the properties fell outside the overlay criteria. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 June 30, 2010 • Craig Chisholm, 473 Sixth Street He indicated that he understood that the premise of this regulation was to help preserve species. He spoke to examining that premise scientifically in light of recent studies. He framed the question as whether this regulation would help to preserve species, or whether it would end up harming the goal of species preservation. He mentioned that the premise of species preservation by regulation was meeting many challenges today from the scientific community. He said that he would leave the City the copy of an abstract of a recent article from The Journal of Conservation Letters. He read the article's conclusion that the Endangered Species Act's underlying assumption — that once recovery goals for a species were met the species would no longer require management — was a false assumption. He mentioned another statement from the article that 84% of the species listed under the Act were conservation -reliant. In other words, man must step in or the species would die. He stated his conclusion that willing private landowners must undertake the task of species preservation on their lands. He asked how that could happen if the City established disincentives for them to do so. He posed the scientific question of whether the proposed regulations were directly counterproductive to their purpose of saving species. He argued that the City needed to examine its program to see if it was counterproductive to its purpose. • Emma Lee Weibel, 5020 SW Carman Drive She indicated that part of their land was designated sensitive lands. She indicated that this 2.5 - acre parcel has been in her husband's family since 1932. She mentioned finding shards of Chinese pottery in the garden because it was where the Chinese imported laborers camped during the early days of Lake Oswego. She commented that only three groups of people have lived on this parcel: Native Americans, Chinese laborers, and the Weibel family. Consequently, they took their land personally. She mentioned that her husband's taxidermy business conducted on the property since 1933 was one of the oldest businesses in Lake Oswego. She recalled that when they annexed to the City for sewer service, she had thought it only right and fair to do so because if they used City services, then they should pay City taxes. She commented that she did not feel that the City had the same sense of fair play towards them. She pointed out that, with their business, they preferred to maintain a buffer for themselves. She indicated that, although the family had no intention of selling the property, they had always been aware that it was an additional valuable resource available to pay for a catastrophic injury. She compared it to a retirement account. She stated that, under the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, they would no longer have this resource. She explained that, even though the overlay affected only part of their property, it was sufficient to render the rest of the land undevelopable to the capacity that it would have been. She commented that she was a great believer in the Commons, those common infrastructure and service elements in a society for which they should pay. She indicated that she has seldom ever voted against a tax levy because she believed in paying taxes, as nothing was free. She stated that she considered it a patriotic privilege to pay taxes. However, taxpayers did not want to pay for the opportunity to look at lovely spaces. She held that, through its Sensitive Lands program, the City was taking advantage of this reluctance. She indicated that she, her husband, and her son all believed deeply in environmentalism and conservation. However, she did not believe in stealing the value of someone else's land so that she could enjoy looking at it. She called shame on anyone who voted for this and tried to perform this sleight of hand by calling it by another name. She contended that the public unaffected directly by the program knew little about it and did not care because they did not stop to think that these beautiful lands that they wanted to remain undeveloped belonged to someone else who has paid property taxes for years and now bore the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 June 30, 2010 entire financial burden for the community to have this land. She mentioned that her friends in Portland could scarcely believe that a supposedly enlightened community like Lake Oswego was trying to work such a trick on some of its citizens. She concurred that this action could ruin the real estate market in Lake Oswego because who was to say whose land would be designated next and how valuable would a property remain under a designation. She commented that she thought that infill would be desirable over expanding the city's borders. She contended that the City should ask Oswegans to indicate by a vote whether they wanted these lands maintained in pristine condition, and then they should vote on paying for it. She remarked that it would be bad enough to lose the land through condemnation but that would be better than having it taken. She held that tax incentives were not even a fraction of the value of the land they were losing. She wondered how long it would take the City paying the taxes to make up the property value to the owners. • Shannon Berlant, 14088 Goodall Road She said that, as far as she knew, she had no Sensitive Lands overlay on her property, but she was near a stream. She explained that the properties across the street from her backed on a gully with a stream mapped with a buffer zone on the Metro map. She speculated that if the City expanded sensitive lands, it could affect her. She presented a list of questions that she hoped the Council would seek answers to and weigh the answers carefully in making its decision. She asked what were the backgrounds of the Task Force members (whom she described as unappointed and unelected), and whether any had a business that could benefit from more land use or from environmental regulation. She asked if any Task Force members had a sensitive lands overlay on their property or had been involved in developing or discussing the original 1998 Sensitive Lands program. She asked why there were not an equal number of constitutional advocates and private property advocates on the Task Force. She asked whether the City would continuously update the Sensitive Lands overlay maps. If so, she wondered why, given that neither Metro nor the State required it. She asked who decided to trade trees/tree groves for water or smaller water buffer zones. She asked why the City regulated upland wildlife habitat and tree groves when Metro and the State did not require it. She asked what the documented environmental basis was for the Sensitive Lands program and what specific wildlife was to be protected and why. She asked what the program has quantitatively and qualitatively accomplished between 1998 and 2010, and where the data was. She commented that the City seemed to have accepted that private property owners, such as the Lake Corporation, could manage the water quality and some land use development issues without land use restrictions. She asked why the City did not give the same respect to the private property rights and stewardship of the upland property owners, or consider their recreational space of equal importance as the lakefront owners' recreational space. She observed that Metro's programs dealt with enhancement and restoration of damaged properties. She asked why Lake Oswego's program focused on restricting those who took care of their property. She argued that the program would discourage owners from enhancing their properties. She mentioned that Metro identified Lake Oswego as riparian habitat, Class 2, yet neither the Metro nor the Lake Oswego maps used that classification. Given that the 1994 Comprehensive Plan considered Oswego Lake to be a natural feature, she asked why the City did not include it in the Sensitive Lands program per Metro's Title 3. Since Metro intended Title 3 for significant water areas and flood plains, she asked why the City excluded the Lake Oswego waterfront, Foothills, and the Willamette riverfront property. She referenced the statement in the Task Force report (pp. 12-13) that Metro has not designated Oswego Lake as a significant resource but has identified its primary function as flood storage and flood control. She referenced the Comprehensive Plan policy recommendations to consider City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 June 30, 2010 Oswego Lake eligible for sensitive lands protection and to require development adjacent to the lake to protect the natural and scenic resources. She wondered whether the City would notify the lakefront property owners before implementation if the City put that recommendation into play. She asked why there was so much regulation of the upland areas if 80%+ of the currently protected upland tree groves drained into this lake that was not a significant resource. She suggested packaging the City's current 17 environmental programs together without sensitive lands in order to show compliance with Metro. She suggested letting the community vote on the issue if sensitive lands were a community value. • Jim Wick, 1817 Cedar Court He indicated that his property had an overlay for the creek flowing next to his property. He mentioned that years ago he dammed the creek for a pond, which became a significant part of his home's value. He observed that if the dam ever washed out, then he would lose the pond because the City would not let him replace the dam. He applauded the Council for trying to solve the important issue of water quality, but described the Sensitive Lands program as taking the easy way out. He argued that all these paper designations did not affect the water quality. He mentioned that his stream came out of a storm sewer that drained a large metro area. Its normal very small flow became a raging torrent when it rained that was under washing the banks of his and his neighbor's homes. He observed that planting trees in a designated buffer area would not solve the stream problem because the problem was the storm water surges. He commented that the curbs along the sidewalk on South Shore kept the water from running off the road and infiltrating into the ground; instead the water went into the storm sewer and then into his creek. He contended that the City could help the creek out more by getting the water off the streets and back into its natural drainage than by putting in buffer strips. He indicated that his house lay completely inside the buffer zone. He mentioned that he understood from staff that, if necessary, the City would let him rebuild on the same footprint if his house burned down, but a new property owner who wanted to remodel the home could not build there. He said that what he minded was the City trying to solve a problem with a pretty map and designated buffers and not dealing with the real problem on the ground. • Betty Buford, 5 Camelot Drive She mentioned that she was a 13 -year Master Gardener with training in the backyard habitat program. She commented that she had been amazed that, at the first session of that program, the instructor told them not to go out and intimidate property owners, as the program was about making people want to do things for wildlife. She indicated that this program was extremely successful because people volunteered their backyards. She observed that there were no controls or the City saying that it would take their backyards and make it into something that it wanted. Rather, this was their own choice and it has become a competition between neighborhoods to get the plaque at the end of their street. She recalled when she and her husband met with Denise Frisbee and Jane from Three Rivers a year ago to discuss making Lake Oswego as a whole community (and not just certain properties) a model city for the State of Oregon on sensitive lands issues. She reported that Ms. Frisbee told her that she would love to do that but that the City still needed to control people's properties. She offered to the viewing audience this vision of a model city without the controls. She recalled a comment that Councilor Tierney made last week that if the community was not behind this program, then it would not work. She agreed. She held that the community was not behind this program, and therefore, at this point, it would not work. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 June 30, 2010 • Tom Zinser, 17920 SW Westview Road He mentioned that he graduated from the University of Oregon Dental School and that he belonged to the Small Woodlands Association. He described the house he built in the middle of his seven acres off Westview Road as his dream house from childhood. He recounted how he found the property and took a year before selecting his building spot. He recalled that Herb Kruse told him something that at the time he thought was bizarre but that now he understood. Mr. Kruse told him that he needed to watch out because the government would try to take away his good piece of land from him. He described building his house before there were any houses on Cook's Butte or the high school or 1-205. He recalled that his two neighbors that owned large parcels had been concerned about fire danger. He spoke of working with the City to bring water to his land for fire protection as well as electricity. He mentioned that he loved the trees and did not cut them down, even for the road he built that meandered through them. He commented that, during the four years in which he built his house, the area started to develop around him with clear -cutting. He described the Sensitive Lands document (LOC 50.16) as a very restrictive and complicated document. He recalled telling the Planning Commission in 2008 that they needed first to notify people if their land came under LOC 50.16 and second, to make sure that the owners understood what was in the document. He commented that he knew that his 18 neighbors knew nothing about the program. He mentioned that he had asked several City staff whether they have heard of LOC 50.16, and they had not. He emphasized the importance of making sure that everyone understood what LOC 50.16 was (given that it was so restrictive), and of sending affected property owners a proper letter notifying them of their inclusion. Tom Zinser, Jr., 18224 Bella Terra He said that he grew up on the Westview land. He referenced the comment made earlier about this program being counterproductive. He asked the Council to look at the property on the corner between Stafford Road and Childs Road. He recalled that, six or seven years ago, when the property owner heard about these overlays coming, he clear-cut his property of the beautiful trees down to a grass lawn. He wondered how many other people not under the overlay were thinking of doing the same thing in order to avoid the overlay. He contended that for the City to come back now crying `Save the resources' when it raped the land all around his father's property was criminal. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: O"ly 20,f2a10. % n /— . Hoffman, Mayo City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 June 30, 2010