Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-07-06 PMCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 6, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. on July 6, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Council President Johnson, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director; Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Director Youth Council Present: Cooper and Silbert 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 LOIS Update Mr. Komarek reported only a few items remained for the issuance of the Final Completion Certificate. Efforts were now being focused on those activities that would occur as soon as lake levels were low enough to allow access. He indicated where most of the work would occur, including a concentrated area on the east end of the lake near Half Moon Bay. Plastic pipe re - linings would be placed in the Foothills area, and Staff was working with property owners and contractors to understand scheduling and impacts to get the preparatory planning in place so that work could occur later this month. Underground pipelines were being cleaned and videotaped to determine if repairs were needed while the lake level was down and a fairly significant repair had already been identified. LOIS was working with the Oswego Lake Country Club to ensure they had the water they need for course irrigation in the fall and spring. FEMA has added requirements related to construction within the flood plain for public agencies that administer a flood plain, so the contractor recently submitted a flood response plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval. LOIS was also preparing for upland work at those locations. Photos of the Bryant Road Pump Station were displayed showing where work has occurred installing wells and maintaining water levels. Work was also planned for the Foothills Pump Station toward the end of this summer. Ms. H isler stated that four lake down meetings were held in June, namely with those areas most impacted by the work. West Bay and Oswego Point Apartments would be impacted by the Cured In Place Plastic (CIPP) line being installed. West Bay area residents would be asked not to use their waste water services for about 24 hours. Portable toilets would be provided, and perhaps passes to a local gym so people could shower. The work period was only 24 hours, but that time was important to ensure the pipe adhered properly. This was the only such area to be impacted because it was the only place where laterals go directly into the intersector. A photo was displayed as Ms. Heisler described the process whereby a resin -lined sleeve was placed in the pipe and steam was used to cure it. M . H isler also reported that an insert for the August edition of Hello LO was in the works. In addition to a nice letter from Mayor Hoffman, thanking the public for their patience and talking about the progress made so far, the insert would discuss safety awareness during the lake down, where some of the traffic issues were expected, etc. Except for the one day in West Bay, the City City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 21 July 6, 2010 would be able to maintain sewer service throughout the project, which was quite an accomplishment. Mr. Komarek stated that the work schedule had not really changed. While some aspects were taking a bit longer than originally anticipated, the project would be completed in its entirety by the end of 2011. He noted there were some cost increases due to the focus on lake down, but was pleased to report the project looked to be about $90 million, including about a $4.5 million contingency for lake down and the Bryant Road Pump Station project. Mr. Komarek clarified for Councilor Hennagin that the first diagram showed the west end of the lake where a number of sections of pipe were to be supported on piles, but were currently lying in the lake bed. When the lake was drawn down, the contractor would lift them up onto the pile supports. Some of those piles need to be excavated, cut off below the current lake bed level and returned to lake bed level. A lot of work would occur in that area with the transition from buried to supported pipe. Two major crews would be working simultaneously—one on the east end near Half Moon Bay and the other on the west end. The area shown in the diagram would be dry. Mayor Hoffman confirmed that the two-year warranty that begins upon substantial completion was a typical warranty period in the construction industry. He noted the LOIS project's substantial completion date was June 29, but the whole project would not be finished until the end of 2011, which left only six months of operations under the warranty. Mr. Komarek clarified the system would be operational by late April or early May, allowing for eight or nine months to determine if any defects existed. A statute of limitations of six years also existed, during which a complaint could be brought should defect be revealed outside the warranty period 3.2 Water Project Update Ms. Heisler presented a video describing the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership and efforts to upgrade the Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Komarek announced that the Joint Lake Oswego/Tigard City Council meeting would be held on Monday, July 12 in Tigard. Staff would discuss the recommended treatment process that resulted from the business case evaluation of treatment alternatives, as well as a general update on project definition activities, permitting activities, and hopefully a report from the State on the City's contested case proceedings and water rights. 3.3 Community Attitudes Survey Results Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager reminded the Councilors that the Community Attitudes Survey has been conducted every two or three years in Lake Oswego since 1996. The complete survey was available on the City's website. Martha DeLong, Campbell DeLong Resources (CDRI) explained the goal of the survey was for the City Council to better understand residents' attitudes and explore current issues the City was facing. A telephone survey with a random sample of 400 Lake Oswego residents 18 years of age or older was conducted in April. CDRI maintains a 50/50 male/female split and that the City could employ respondents. She presented the results of the survey, noting several key statistics. Overall, residents were very pleased with Lake Oswego as a place to live. On a scale of 1 to 10, 8.5 was the average response for 2010 and about 50% approved of the direction City Council is setting. Those who approve of the Council's work believed Council was making the city more livable and making good decisions. Those who disapproved most often believed the purchase of the West End property was a mistake, about the same number as in 2008. Fire and rescue services were rated most important of the City's services, followed by police services. The City library was rated higher than in most communities. The City library received very high performance ratings, as did parks and recreation, special events, police, and fire and rescue services. Two areas important to citizens that were rated lower in performance were street maintenance and water, sewer and storm drainage. These two services were rated similarly in the 2008 survey. This did not necessarily reflect that a poor job was being done; only that expectations were not being City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 21 July 6, 2010 met. Strong support was shown for the City to do more with redeveloping the Lake Grove Business District and nearly two thirds of the respondents agreed redevelopment of the Foothills area was an exciting opportunity for the City. There was strong support for a larger public library with nearly 40% disagreeing there was a need. Six out of ten agreed the West End property would be a good location for public facilities, but, a quarter of those surveyed strongly disagreed. Two thirds of the respondents agreed with expanding the Portland Streetcar into Lake Oswego, yet as inception approached, support did tend to decline. Strong positive responses were received about the City continuing to protect natural resources on all lands within the city and that more young people and young families would be an asset to the city. Lake Oswego City employees or officials had contact with 55% of respondents, indicating very highly engaged citizens in Lake Oswego. Respondents most frequently got information about the City from the Lake Oswego Review and Hello LO. The demographics of the respondents were long-term residents who own their homes and are unlikely to have young children. They were also one of the most educated groups in the Portland metropolitan area. Councilor Hennagin asked if the demographics were analyzed of those who disagreed that attracting more families with young children would be good for the community. Ms. DeLong answered no because only about 14% of respondents had a negative opinion on that issue. Councilor Johnson noted the age demographic for the survey might be skewed toward older citizens because of residents without land lines, answering machines or that do not respond. Older citizens might place higher importance on immediate issues rather than those impacting the community 25 years from now. She asked what education the City might do to get citizens actively looking forward. She was surprised that sewer and storm water issues got such low ratings on the survey given all the publicity about the need for the sewer project. Ms. DeLong replied the reasons why people responded lower about water and sewer issues specifically was unknown. It could have been rates or a perception that the project was not moving as quickly as it should. Higher ratings could not be achieved without knowing the reason. It is increasingly difficult to attract the attention of all residents. Elected officials have a big job in getting people to understand what work is being done. Councilor Johnson expressed frustration that so much outreach and communication had been done, at great cost, and yet survey responses did not seem to reflect the anticipated result of increased awareness. Ms. DeLong explained for Mayor Hoffman that demographics are important because age impacts responses in some cases, but not as often as might be expected. Lake Oswego is an older community. There was rising concern about how young people could be reached for surveys in the future. Mayor Hoffman observed that the Planning Department's performance was rated low, although it had the most contacts. The City had done a lot of work over the past 1'/z years to improve performance in this area and he asked if the rating was available from the prior survey. Ms DeLong stated that the wording of the questions had changed so no direct comparison could be made. Typically, Planning was rated as the least important and received one of the lowest scores historically. These ratings might be slightly improved since 2008. Mayor Hoffman noted that the way the police and fire facility question was asked those responding 1 don't know" could still support having a new facility. He asked if the survey results about the needed library, police and fire facilities would be sufficient enough to win in an election. Ms. DeLong did not believe so. The library had the advantage of a great core group of supporters, but overall there was a 54% support rate, which is not typically enough to pass something, especially once associated costs are reported. Mayor Hoffman commented that service rates were likely the issue for the low response on water and sewer. Councilor Olson asked whether changing the wording in the streetcar question might have caused the declining number from last time. She added that the streetcar might not be an actual additional option, since bus service would likely decrease once the street car was operational. Ms. D Long stated 2/3 of the respondents support it even knowing the costs. The decline might have stemmed from the wording change and the recession. She believed the streetcar was more likely City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 21 July 6, 2010 to pass given its higher degree of support. People tend to like light rail more than buses and that indicated more support for increased options in Lake Oswego. Ms. DeLong confirmed for Councilor Moncrieff that using consistent language from year to year would help in accurate tracking and in using the survey as a decision-making tool. The survey served dual purposes, both as a tracking tool and a snapshot of current attitudes. Some parts were kept as consistent as possible to track trends, while other questions were varied every time because there were always new issues facing communities. Councilor Moncrieff asked whether a percentage guideline existed for determining election viability. Ms DeLong replied the number varies but at least 60% or two-thirds approval would be needed, probably more, depending on how soft the support. Mayor Hoffman asked about the percentage of respondents from each district of the city in comparison with previous years' surveys, and whether their demographic differences might sway survey results, as well as the higher likelihood of younger citizens to use cell phones exclusively instead of land lines, making them harder to reach. Do these factors affect the accuracy of responses? Ms. DeLong replied it was important to pay attention to these factors, but the impact on the current survey was negligible. Councilor Jordan expressed concern about the percentage of respondents being unbalanced through the various neighborhoods and that neighborhoods with more young families were not being represented as highly as others. These variations would seem to impact the overall results. Ms. DeLong restated that such factors like from where the sample is being drawn, were important to consider and they must realize that bias does exist. Lake Oswego has few renters and few young people in the sample, and it was possible their opinions could vary. When looking at the results, be aware that those issues are in the data. Younger residents are hard to reach by phone and therefore tend to figure a bit lower in the percentage of respondents. Councilor Johnson stated that different methods to supplement the surveys exist, such as internet surveys, to get more of the younger citizens' perspective. The survey revealed that it is important to the community to have more young families, but with older respondents rating service priorities following the survey results alone would not necessarily get Lake Oswego where they wanted the city. Councilor Tierney said that the most disturbing prominent finding was the reduced confidence in government. He asked whether the problem was stronger in Lake Oswego, or was it a national trend alone. Ms. DeLong replied that this was a national trend, but reminded that even though it is a national trend, citizens usually feel more confident about their local governments than the national level, and it was a concern to see that local confidence dropping. Councilor Olson observed that Ms. DeLong had noted that not all communities were seeing similar declines in government confidence and that she seemed to be cautioning the Council to try to reverse the trend. She asked for Ms. DeLong's thoughts on the meaning of the decline in trust and confidence in government. Ms DeLong reminded there was a lot of good news in the report and many things the citizens like, but there were also a number signs that they have concerns relating to trusting their government. She was not able to present specific answers as to how to fix it, but she did recommend that Council take it seriously and not dismiss it as a national trend. She recommended that the Council continue to work on communication with the citizens to help regain their trust, especially as it relates to the West End building purchase. That purchase has been hard on the City Council, the City and people's trust. She believed the City would not build a library or a public safety facility until that issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the community. Mayor Hoffman thanked Ms. DeLong and said that City Council would likely have a Study Session to review the survey findings in more detail, which would inform the budget and goal setting processes. M . Kirk added that CDRI was very responsive to all citizen concerns regarding the survey. In response to Councilor Olson, she said she was uncertain why the survey was now being conducted every three years rather than two, but encouraged Council to consider what questions City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 21 July 6, 2010 they would want to ask and at what intervals. Limited attention spans were a concern, so much of the wording had changed to shorten the survey. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Jordan moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] 4.1 RESOLUTIONS 4.1.1 Resolution 10-36 approving appointments to the Development Review Commission Action: Adopt Resolution 10-36, appointing Alby Heredia and Peter Scott to the Development Review Commission. 4.1.2 Resolution 10-37, approving appointments to the Transportation Advisory Board Action: Adopt Resolution 10-37, re -appointing Gregg Mindt and appointing Peter Goodkin and Donald McHarness to the Transportation Advisory Board. 4.1.3 Resolution 10-38, approving an appointment to the Natural Resources Advisory Board Action: Adopt Resolution 10-38, appointing Craig Stephens to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. 4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.2.1 January 23, 2010, goal -setting (afternoon portion) 4.2.2 April 6, 2010, work session 4.2.3 June 1, 2010, regular meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA — None 6. CITIZEN COMMENT Janine Dunphy, 7151 Canal Circle, Lake Oswego Ms. Dunphy, representing the 50+ Advisory Board, read her letter dated July 6, 2010 into the record, expressing the Board's support and suggestions regarding the secondary dwelling process. Charles "Skip" Ormsby, Vice Chair Birdshill CPO, 170 SW Birdshill Rd, Portland, Clackamas County Mr. Ormsby requested that dialogue be opened before Willamette Shoreline Right -of -Way Tours begin due to a long list of issues. He suspected that the City's propaganda tactics would cover serious issues. Imbedded tracks in the roadway in the direction of traffic on Macadam Ave were a major safety issue and ODOT's response to his March request was included in his email. Secondly, and especially with the testimony of Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts, before the TriMet Board of Directors on June 23, 2010, a 42% increase in crime had occurred at the Clackamas Town Center with the advent of the Green Line and east end Lake Oswego business owners should be scared about having the streetcar coming to town. He cited issues with the hidden transfer in Portland and the fact that the streetcar goes no where near Pioneer Courthouse Square. He believed the facts were being camouflaged, which was creating mistrust of City Council. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 21 July 6, 2010 Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Ct, Lake Oswego Mr. Buford reminded that the last time he addressed City Council, he presented evidence that trees increase property value, although too many trees can actually reduce land value. He noted citizens' support in the survey for the protection of natural resources on all the land in the city and hoped Council would recognize that support was for lands currently encumbered with RC and/or RP overlays. Realtors, developers and land owners, over the past months and years, have claimed that Sensitive Lands overlays reduce land value. A recent opinion commissioned by the City, bought and paid for, included comments by a Portland real estate appraiser, who in his very vague and guarded conclusion, did not say these overlays do not reduce value, but Mr. Buford feared this was the spin the City was putting on that study. 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Resolution 10-43, adoption the City of Lake Oswego Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2010-11 to 2014-15 Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, reviewed the hearing criteria for a legislative land use hearing, hearing procedures, and testimony time limits. STAFF REPORT Guy Graham, City Engineer, presented the CIP, which was included on p 71 of Council's meeting packet, reviewing the CIP's approval process to date and noting the document included additional program areas not incorporated last year, including capital equipment, primarily vehicles, and planned updates in the Lake Oswego redevelopments. Many projects included in the document were for replacement or renewal of existing assets that were at or near the end of their useful lives. Renewal projects typically do not seem to rate very high in CIP public opinion polls, however they are critical to providing reliable and cost-effective services to the community. The CIP process would completely evolve, becoming more useful and valuable to the City, Council, Boards and Associations, but also to the community at large. He envisioned that future CIP documents would include information about additional annual operational maintenance and renewal and replacement costs associated with the capital project. This would help to articulate the full life -cycle cost for assets and assist the Council in making decisions regarding capital investments from a holistic perspective. This CIP document was a positive step forward toward achieving a sustainable loss/life cycle for structure and services. He recommended that Council approve the resolution. Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony Maria Meneghin, 1179 Sunnyvale Road Ms. Meneghin asked whether the 2010-11 CIP was the same as that presented in March. Mr. Graham replied that it was slightly modified by the Budget Committee. Mayor Hoffman closed the public hearing. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Olson noted that the new South Shore Fire Station building, shown in a prior draft, appeared to be missing from the CIP. City Manager Alex McIntyre agreed that the plan was for the replacement of the entire new South Shore station and should have been included in the CIP. Mr. Graham clarified for Councilor Olson that the items listed under Plan Updates on p. 7 of Project Summaries were related to infrastructure investment, which was a different category than the $275,000 contract for a Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. McIntyre affirmed for Mayor Hoffman that the $6 million and $11 million line items in the middle of p. 5 were dedicated to maintenance facility replacement. Mr. Graham clarified for Councilor Tierney the designations of funded and unfunded items, stating that the only funded projects were those for the current fiscal year. He hoped that moving forward, at least for Public Works, they would know the anticipated revenues and operating City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 21 July 6, 2010 expenses so that funding projections could be identified. Councilor Tierney asked why some items for future years were already listed as funded, such as City -Wide Intersection Signal Improvements p. 1 and Sidewalk Repair p. 2, and why more annual projects were not carried forward into the funded category. He acknowledged that as a planning document, the CIP would include some anticipated base lines. Mr. McIntyre affirmed that as a planning document, the CIP identified the need to secure certain funds. The term funded meant money was actually available to be spent on that particular project. Some current year projects had not received final funding yet For example, a project funded with grant money might be listed as unfunded because the grant, although approved and pending, would not be paid for two years. The need for signal improvements is identified, so as funds become available within the existing street maintenance budget, they would become funded. The CIP was a planning tool to identify funding needs to be considered in future budget planning. Councilor Tierney asserted that the tennis and golf facilities were identified as needs and should be included in the CIP under Future Projects. The City had already spent $60,000 on these facilities and should try to move forward with them. Mr. Hooper explained the issue was that a feasibility analysis is currently being conducted. The location of the tennis facility and relocation of the golf course driving range was yet to be determined. He was not sure these were committed projects. Councilor Tierney responded the projects have always been in the CIP and Council had approved carrying both projects forward. Councilor Jordan suggested that the new fire station building be listed as a Future Projects item with City Hall, rather than under Facilities where routine maintenance items were listed. She asked if a roof replacement for the South Shore fire station was identified somewhere for 2010-11. Mr. Graham explained how the City's asset registry and asset condition assessment helped the City plan for funding future replacements, which was reflected in the rate models in anticipation of those costs. Ultimately, the CIP would identify those needs and provide clear options for how to pay for them. Considering the millions of dollars involved, Councilor Jordan reminded that Council depends on Staff to prioritize the projects list. Mr. Graham agreed prioritization was the CIP's primary goal, and considered the lifespan of various projects, the need for services, and transparency to the public. One reason citizens might be critical of the City was that they did not understand the costs of providing and maintaining services. Having the CIP as well as the citizens' survey data would help Council make decisions based on good data. He appreciated Council making some tough decisions about raising rates and believed the community was ahead of the game as far as planning for needed future investments. Mr. Graham agreed with Councilor Olson that the South Shore Fire Station should be captured on pg 1 under Unfunded Facilities with the maintenance facility and new police station. He remembered prior discussions of public safety facilities regarding exploring bond financing. Councilor Hennagin believed the City needed to be consistent in its assessment of what items were included in the CIP. The coolers at the West End Building were not included because they were considered a maintenance item, but then pgs 198 and 199 listed power washing and repainting the building and parking lot sealing, which appeared to maintenance expenditures, as capital improvements. Mr. Graham agreed that defining exactly what qualifies as a capital improvement or maintenance items would be included in future years. The designations needed to be coordinated between the Finance and Public Works Departments and regarded GASB 34 reporting requirements. Mayor Hoffman summarized that the CIP needed to be amended to include the South Shore Fire Station on p 1, as well as the tennis facility because it was part of Council's goals. Mr. Graham agreed those items could be added to the CIP as Unfunded Projects in future years, which would not impact the 2010-11 fiscal year. Councilor Olson recommended that the CIP be brought back to Council with the noted corrections and agreed reviewing only those pages with adjustments would be sufficient. In future years, it would be helpful to better integrate the CIP review into the budget process. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 21 July 6, 2010 Mr. Hoop r confirmed for Councilor Jordan that the cooling tower and chillers were two separate items. Mayor Hoffman announced that Resolution 10-43 would be continued to the August 3, 2010 agenda. Mayor Hoffman called for a break at 8:21 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p.m. At this time, City Council addressed Agenda Item 8.1 Resolution 10-45 (p 18). 8. REPORTS 8.1 Resolution 10-45, approving appointments to the Comprehensive Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Sarah Selden, City Neighborhood Planner, reviewed the staff report, explaining the CAC role in the Comprehensive Plan update process and its composition. The appointment of the two neighborhood representatives would be deferred to August 3, as well as the Parks & Recreation advisory board member so that board's vacancies could be filled and a CAC member recommended. CAC members would be invited to attend City Council's July 27 Study Session, and the first CAC meeting was anticipated to convene in early August. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Moncrieff, and Comprehensive Plan CAC Chair, added that the Sustainability Advisory Board Liaison, Paul Lyons, would not be able to serve on the committee, so that position would also have to be appointed at a later time. Ms. Selden described for Councilor Tierney the process used for selecting the neighborhood association representatives. She emailed all the neighborhood association chairs the draft charge statement along with an explaining the process and asked that they distribute the request to all of their individual board members. Anyone interested was directed to respond with a brief written statement about how they would make this a community process, their experience working on a committee level, and their experience working well with groups. Responses were being gathered and Staff would make a recommendation to the Council. Councilor Moncrieff explained how the young adult representative was selected, noting that the goal was to have as many neighborhood associations represented as possible. They considered where people came from to ensure they had wide -spread coverage. For the young adult representative, Loren Irving was very qualified. She lived in the West Lake Neighborhood Association, which was not covered, and she worked on Kruse Way so she was also tapped into the Lake Oswego business community. Ms. Irving was a life-long Lake Oswego resident, and was committed to being actively involved on the committee, so she was an excellent candidate for the position. Councilor Hennagin moved for adoption of Resolution 10-45. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice -vote was taken, and the resolutionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Moncrieff, Olson and Tierney voting `aye.' [7-0] City Council returned to Agenda Item 7.2 Ordinance 2556 at this time (p 9). 7.2 Ordinance 2556, amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code), Section 50.22.030 to allow accessory structures and water dependent uses to occur within the Oswego Lake setbacks (LU 08-0052 A) Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, read the hearing criteria for a legislative land use public hearing, hearing procedures, and testimony time limits. He asked if any members of Council needed to declare a conflict of interest. There were none. STAFF REPORT D bra Andr ad s, S nior Plann r, presented the Staff report, noting that Section 50.22.030 was part of a larger package of minor Code amendments being reviewed the Planning Commission. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 21 July 6, 2010 The Commission agreed to move these forward separately so that property owners affected by the lake draw down could plan for repairs or construction. She reviewed the criteria for the legislative decision, adding the larger package of amendments might have additional criteria that were not listed here. The proposed Code amendments would provide more flexibility to allow accessory structures in general, not just boathouses. She reviewed a few PowerPoint slides to describe the amendment's affect on property lines. Ms. Andreades distributed a letter from Lake Corporation Manager Jeff Ward that did not get into the record. The Lake Corporation (Lake Corp) had submitted a request, which Staff presented to the Planning Commission, causing slight modifications to the setback than the original amendments Staff presented to the Planning Commission. Those were not approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ward's letter referred to the alternate language the Lake Corp preferred that was found in the Supplemental Staff report dated April 30, 2010. Pages 5-7 were where the Lake Corp's requests were outlined. The chart on p 7 showed the alternate way the Lake Corp wanted the language written, which would actually list the items allowed below grade and specify chimney stacks for barbecues, fire places, steps, docks, spas, Jacuzzis, and outdoor showers. The Planning Commission approved the amendment as originally written on p 79 of the packet. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Ms. Andreades clarified for Councilor Hennagin that the lake setback is measured from the rear property line. If the rear property line is in the water, the amendment would not have an affect on that property. It mostly has an affect on properties where Lake Corp property is in between the water line and rear property line of the private property. Councilor Tierney said he was trying to understand the differences between what the Lake Corp proposed and what was before Council from the Planning Commission. He asked whether barbecues, fire places, lights, steps, docks, decks, spas and Jacuzzis were allowed under the ordinance as proposed. Ms. Andreades quoted from p 79, stating, "lake -related infrastructures and uses," so she assumed those items would be included as lake -related infrastructure: showers, decks, spas, and docks would be included, but were not specifically listed. Barbecues and fireplaces would be allowed because they were considered to be accessory structures depending on how they were built. The requested changes to the ordinance would limit the size of the barbecue. An outdoor shower could be considered under "lake -related infrastructures and uses." Councilor Tierney stated that "lake -related" was more water dependent and defined as "the structures, facilities and equipment necessary to maintain Oswego Lake, includes but not limited to dams, dikes, levies, head gates, fish screens, culverts, water storage..." A shower would be lake - related, because if the lake was used for recreation, one might need to shower off after using the lake. A shower is usually attached to or part of a boathouse, so then it would be an accessory structure to the primary residence, even if the shower was freestanding structures. Ms. Andreades added that a large barbecue would be an accessory structure, but a large outdoor stand-alone shower might not be interpreted as an accessory structure, depending on how it was designed, wired, etc. Councilor Tierney said the challenge was the specificity and ability to interpret the ordinance. He was concerned that neither had been accomplished. Mr. Boone explained that as published by Staff, the Planning Commission proposed that Oswego Lake setback properties should have the same treatment as backyards in a non -lake property setting. He did not believe the Lake Corp technically had authority over the upland properties affected by the ordinance, but their representatives would speak to that. As he understood it, their authority only related to Lake Corp property. If one wanted access to the lake, one would have to get permission from Lake Corp, which opened discussions for uses around the lake. Ms. Andreades added that there was confusion about where the Lake Corp had authority. For instance, if a boathouse was built in the lake setback on Lake Corp property and overlapped onto private property, the Lake Corp had jurisdiction over their property and City regulations apply to the 25 -ft lake setback. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 21 July 6, 2010 Councilor Moncrieff asked why the Lake Corp believed it necessary to provide alternative language to that approved by the Planning Commission, which allowed uses that were standard to city-wide properties. Ms Andreades reiterated the Planning Commission's stance was that lake setback properties should be regulated the same as any setback in the city. Mr. Boone added that the Commission struggled with the question of why the public interest was different for property within 25 ft of the rear yard that abuts the lake as opposed to other properties. The Lake Corp, similar to a homeowners' association, had their own private covenants, and therefore their own restrictions that the property owners may choose to impose. He believed the Planning Commission perceived it as a public interest matter, and then let the private property owners regulate the interest themselves. Councilor Jordan noted the Planning Commission had increased the size limit of accessory structures to 800 sq ft from the 500 sq ft requested by the Lake Corp. Ms. Andreades clarified that the regulation limited the maximum footprint square footage of all accessory structures to no more than 800 sq ft. If a property owner had multiple accessory structures, the total square footage could not exceed 800 sq ft, and the proposed regulations coincided with other non -lakefront low density residential property. A barbecue could be considered an accessory structure, depending on how it was built. A deck would not be an accessory structure, unless it was covered, then it would be included in the square footage of the accessory structure. Ms. Andreades explained for Councilor Olson that if a non -lake property owner wanted to build secondary dwelling unit (SDU), they would have to meet all the setbacks for that property's zone, the unit would not abut the property line. The 800 -sq ft limitation and 18 -ft height limit regarded structures that were not up against the property line. Mr. Boone noted there was an exception that allowed accessory structures to be sited 40 ft away from the front property line. Ms. Andreades added accessory structures, except SDUs could be built within 3 ft of the property line if 40 ft from the street, no more than 10 -ft high and no more than 600 or 800 sq ft. SDUs have their own requirements. Councilor Olson asked to review the timeline regarding the Planning Commission's recommended approval of the subject amendments and any discussions with the Lake Corp as to their preferences. Ms. Andreades stated the Lake Corp made their requests during the public hearing for the Planning Commission. On April 30th, Staff brought the Lake Corp's request for an alternate regulation to the Planning Commission that was included in the letter from Jeff Ward. The Planning Commission considered the request and decided against bringing that version forward and instead approved the amendments as originally published, which Staff brought to City Council. The Planning Commission vote was on June 28, 2010. Councilor Olson noted that Council did not have the June 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes and asked why Commissioner Brockman changed her vote from yes to no in time between the initial approval and the adoption of findings. Without the minutes, Council had no understanding of the discussion to understand the vote. Ms. Andreades answered she did not recall why. Councilor Jordan speculated she would have been concerned about the potential for zero side yard setbacks for accessory structures on properties within the Oswego Lake setback. There was a rear yard zero setback, but the issue was with the side yard. Accessory structures are permitted to occur within 3 ft of the property line, but within the Oswego Lake setback, the as -published version as recommended by Planning Commission was to go to zero on side yards. Councilor Olson confirmed that 18 -ft high, 800 -sq ft accessory structures would never be allowed in other yards with zero side yard setbacks, the minimum had to be 3 ft. Councilor Hennagin confirmed with Ms. Andreades that the square footage of a deck would count when the deck was more than 30 inches above the ground. He asked if a special ordinance had existed historically for properties ringing the lake that was different than restrictions on other properties in low density neighborhoods. Mr. Boone answered yes, currently a special ordinance restricted property owners within the Oswego Lake setback to a very limited number of accessory uses. Councilor H nnagin asked if the reasons were known why City Council established different regulations for homeowners on the lake as opposed to other owners. Mr. Boone believed that ordinance was adopted prior to 1982, but that Council's position was unknown at this time. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 21 July 6, 2010 Councilor Hennagin asked if there was any concern before the Planning Commission about the fact that the new ordinance would still treat lakefront homeowners differently than other homeowners because of the lack of the 3 -ft setbacks. Mr. Boone did not recall any testimony as to either the lakefront or non -lakefront property owners. He speculated that some concern existed about the zero side within the Commission, which he believed was noted but was obviously not a major issue given the majority vote. Councilor Hennagin said if the justification for a 3 -ft setback was assumed to be because other property owners would most likely have a neighboring property on their rear property line, that consideration that would not apply to lakeside properties because they do not have immediate neighbors to the back. Mr. Boone replied that was a valid policy analysis since no one would be in the immediate proximity to the rear. Mayor Hoffman asked if the proposed ordinance affected any property owned by the City of Lake Oswego, or adversely affected the City. Ms. Andreades replied that any property abutting the lake would be affected no matter who owned it. Mr. Boone summarized the amendment loosened up the currently permitted uses allowed within the Oswego Lake setback. He did not believe it would adversely affect the properties, but actually allowed more uses than current regulations. Mayor Hoffman confirmed with Ms. Andreades that as written, there was no side yard setback in the Oswego Lake setback. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Skip O'Neil, Greenbriar Rd, representing the Lake Corporation Mr. O'Neil stated the problem with the graph was it would be difficult for an individual to go to the Planning Department with a structure that crossed both Lake Corp and City properties. The Lake Corp had a set of rules and the City's newly created, separate set of rules were in conflict. If a document was created to define rear yard setbacks the Lake Corp and City's regulations should match fairly closely. The most difficulty area was "maximum height of 6 ft," which was generically written. The Lake Corp wanted no structure to be higher than 30 inches. The Lake Corp wanted to move away from a lot of hardscape along the lake's edge and keep it as natural as possible. They were trying to make boathouses smaller, not larger. They receive many requests for bigger boathouses, or two boathouses, two-story party rooms, second -story offices, etc. This had shareholders and citizens taking advantage of property that was not really theirs, while also improving their property with these accessory structures. After speaking at the Planning Commission's first public hearing, Mr. O'Neil met and worked with the Staff on some of the height issues. A proposal was written up that went before the Planning Commission, but they did not support any of the items. One problem was the City required that for boathouses on City property, not Lake Corp property, any staircase to a rooftop deck had to be enclosed in the boathouse, technically making it a two- story boathouse. If the neighbor's property was totally on Lake Corp land, the rooftop deck had to have an exterior staircase. This issue opened discussion for other parts of the Code that do not coincide, and barbecues, outdoor fireplaces, etc. were discussed. The view corridor was very important for Lake Corp's shareholders, so structures that were too tall, too wide, or too big created a lot of neighbor -to -neighbor problems, so the Lake Corp created some height limitation requirements for rooftop decks and peaked roofs, which accommodate the new taller boats. The Lake Corp also wanted to limit the size of boathouses to 500 sq ft. It takes about a 30 -ft deep boathouse to fit a 22 -ft boat and have room to walk around it. These considerations led to the Lake Corp's square footage limitations. The sizes identified in the amendments would just result in a lot of confused citizens. The ordinance could be written so property owners could easily understand what could be put in their backyards. Councilor Moncrieff understood from Mr. Boone that the Lake Corp had the ability to regulate building around the lake in the same way as a homeowners' association. Mr. O'N it clarified the Lake Corp only had authority on its own property, but did not have any ability to regulate on City or private property. The Lake Corp was not a homeowners' association. Mr. Boone noted that Lake City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 21 July 6, 2010 Corp did have ownership of the adjacent property, and established rules and regulations related to anything built on Lake Corp property, and anything that has water. The Lake Corp could require conformance on the upland side in order for someone to be allowed to build on Lake Corp property. Mr. O'Neil replied the Lake Corp has not done that. Mr. Boone responded because the issue had not arisen due to the limited nature of uses permitted in the Lake Oswego setback. Mr. O'Neil stated the Lake Corp would have no control over a property outside the water line. Mr. Boone agreed, adding the Planning Commission looked at the public interest relative to property not around the lake where people could build 18 -ft high accessory structures. With lake properties the apparent back yard extends further down to the lake. Councilor Jordan understood that a boathouse extending into Lake Corp property would be limited to 500 sq ft and asked if another 800 sq ft of accessory structures would be allowed on the 25 ft setback. Ms. Andreades answered yes, as the regulation was currently written. Mr. O'Neil stated the Lake Corp would be against that. Mayor Hoffman summarized that the Planning Commission and Staff proposed that barbecues, fireplaces lights, steps, docks, decks and spas be 6 -ft high, and boathouses 18 ft high and 800 sq ft, while the Lake Corp proposed those accessory structures be 30 -in tall and boat houses 13.5 ft and 500 sq ft. Mr. O'Neil clarified that flat-topped boathouses could not be more than 10 -ft high, except those with peaked roofs, which were limited to 13.5 -ft high. He confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that the Lake Corp's goal is to have neighbors living along the water treated the same, and also to restrict massing along the lake's edge. Mayor Hoffman asked why the Planning Commission did not support the Lake Corp's proposal. Ms. Andreades replied that the Commission believed regulations on properties not abutting the lake should be no different than the regulations on the lake in terms of accessory structure regulations, which involved more than boathouses. Councilor Hennagin asked if a 500 -sq ft boathouse on Lake Corp's property counted toward the 800 -sq ft limitation in the 25 -ft setback. Ms. Andreades answered no, and then confirmed 1,300 sq ft of accessory structures would be allowed under the ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission. • Bob Barman, 1445 Oak Terrace, Lake Oswego, Palisades Neighborhood Board representative Area 1 Mr. Barman supported Staff's finding and could support some modifications from Lake Corp, but emphasized this did not regard Lake Corp property, but homeowners' property. The Lake Corp owned and controlled land between the private property line and the lake, where one could have a barbecue, a pool, etc. The issue regarded the rear yard setback to Lake Corp property, and whether a homeowner could put a pool or barbecue on that rear yard setback to the lawn. Typically, a 3 -ft or 5 -ft rear yard setback would be required in a neighborhood. Why would it matter if the homeowner had a pool or barbeque on the rear yard setback to the lawn? The ordinance allows a pool, barbeque or deck to go right to the property line on the rear or side yard, a zero setback. He noted the first diagram illustrated that the boathouse would be limited to 13 ft because it would be on Lake Corp property, and the homeowner would have to abide by Lake Corp rules. The center diagram showed the homeowner and Lake Corp had shared ownership of the waterfront property. The Lake Corp did not control the water if it was on private homeowner or City property. The ordinance would allow a boathouse to be built that would still require Lake Corp's approval if it went over the property line. The third diagram illustrated a completely submerged property 25 ft to the waterline, again under Lake Corp control. He and his wife were interested in building a pool. If the home was set back 25 ft from the property line, a 20 -ft wide pool with a 5 -ft setback would be right at the house. With a zero setback the pool could go to the property line and the structure could be built. A pool certainly did not affect the view shed, nor did a low-lying barbecue. The 6 ft height was really critical because the lake's water level City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 21 July 6, 2010 was 98.6 ft and the flood plain was 104.5 ft, so allowing for 6 ft accessory structures would not block anyone's view, even on property at lake level. If 6 ft was not allowed, the backyard of the property would become unusable because of the stair stepping required to accommodate the 30 -in structures. He suggested that the City pass the ordinance and accept the Lake Corp's 13.5 ft and 500 -ft modifications, but not the 30 -in modification. He recommended a Residential Infill Design (RID) process because homeowners who lived on a cliff needed more than 13 ft and if it is on their property, the Lake Corp should not have a say any more than anyone else. Not all properties are the same, so if the Council allowed the 13.5 ft and 500 ft, and then allowed those RID properties a chance, he believed everything could be fixed. The Lake Corp could stop anything they wanted on their property, but this conversation was not about their property, it was about private property. Lakefront homeowners should have the same rights as anyone else. Finally, it was important to pass this ordinance because the lake level was going down and in his case, he was unable to get permits to build. The lake was only going down one time in the next ten years, and if the engineering and all the related work did not get done, or the issue got dragged out, it would take away citizens' ability to have reasonable improvements. He concluded that approving this ordinance was not controversial in Area One or with other homeowners. Councilor Moncrieff asked if Mr. Barman had a problem with Lake Corp's recommendation to decrease the 18 ft height limit to 13.5 ft and reduce the maximum footprint from 800 to 500 sq ft. Mr. Barman answered no, but he would recommend a RID process in both cases. He also had no problem with 8 ft as a maximum height for a shower head. The big issue, in his opinion, was the 6 - ft versus 30 -in restriction. Lynne Paretchan, Planning Commissioner, 17339 Blue Heron Rd Ms. Paretchan stated the Planning Commission spent a lot of time on this ordinance and carefully considered the Lake Corp's proposal. The Commission appreciated that all the properties on the lake are different. Having a different rule apply to Oswego lakefront property than that which applied to the rest of the City's accessory structures did not make sense. If Lake Corp wanted to limit heights on their property to 13.5 ft, they could, but the City set its height allowance for accessory dwellings at 18 ft. The Commission often hears that the rules were so confusing and that an exception or a difference always existed, so they worked to make the rules clear. Having anything but a consistent application as to what an accessory structure was and what the regulations for it were would just add to the confusion. Right now, someone could build an 18 -ft high shower head in the rear yard of their property as long as they were within their lot coverage and FAR, but not if the property was in the Oswego Lake setback. That did not make sense. If one wanted to build an 18 -ft high barbecue in their backyard that did not front the lake, they could get a building permit and do so. But having height limits for particular types of structures in the city did not make sense to the Commission. View corridors were a concern and every neighbor would be concerned if an 18 -ft high barbecue was built in their neighbor's yard, but that was something everyone had to live with. They considered the view issue and decided that it was not significant enough to create a separate code and adopt the particular nuances about how high a shower head or fireplace should be. It would be better for the City to use the standard rules they had established and, to the extent that it was on Lake Corp property, they could regulate their property and the City could regulate its property. If there was an overlap, the property owner and Lake Corp would have to come to terms. The standard should be the same and consistent. The Commission did not believe they should be creating a separate set of rules to address a particular private property's concerns. The Lake Corp could change their rules on their property. The City should be consistent and equitable to everyone in the city. The Commission discussed the issue at length and took the matter very seriously. The Lake Corp's recommendation was considered very carefully and the Commission decided that greater equities were in play. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 21 July 6, 2010 Councilor Olson asked whether lakefront property side and rear yard setbacks were different from non -lakefront property. Ms. Par tchan replied this property fronting the lake had zero setbacks on the side and rear yards. An 18 -ft high shower could be built on a rear yard setback as long as it was within the side yard setbacks. The side setback issue did not come up at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Boone added that the exception would allow the structure to have a 3 ft setback. Councilor Olson explained the point was that lake properties are different and zero setbacks were one difference in Code. Lake properties had no back yard neighbor because they are on the lake, and there were no side yard setbacks. Council was told the reason the Commission kept it consistent was so everyone would be the same and the lake should not be any different, but it was different. Councilor Tierney noted this portion of Code was unique to the lake because lake properties are different, so why not have differences in building heights, etc. compared to other places in the city? Ms. Paretchan answered that adding limits to accessory structures within the 25 ft setback did not seem to make sense to the Planning Commission at this time. The existing height and square footage limitations seemed adequate. Reducing the size of a structure because of neighboring private property owner did not generate enough public interest. The change would be in the interest of the Lake Corp, not residential lake property owners, which was the priority for the Planning Commission. City Code applied to private property and those were the equities considered. Councilor Tierney recalled a recommendation from the Second Look Task Force to revisit the lake in terms of its designation as Sensitive Lands. He asked how Staff reconciled those if in fact lakefront property was considered Sensitive Lands in this ordinance. He asked whether the changes would apply to properties already designated as Sensitive Lands, or did the Sensitive Lands supersede this Code. Ms. Paretchan replied that the lake was not considered Sensitive Lands under LOC 50.16 at this time, so the ordinance would not change anything having to do with LOC 50.16. On properties with Sensitive Lands, LOC 50.16 would supersede any other regulation because LOC 50.16 was intended to protect natural resources, whether lake front or not. Mayor Hoffman confirmed there was no further public testimony and closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Olson inquired about the protection of slopes, quoting p 84 of the packet under Goal 5 Open Space, Historic and Natural Areas Oswego Lake Policies 1 and 5, which read, "Cooperate with the Lake Oswego Corporation to protect the natural resource, energy, aesthetic and recreation values of Oswego Lake, minimize negative impacts on upland vegetation slopes, fish and wildlife habitat..." Ms. Paretchan replied if there was a slope, the Hillside Protection Standard would supersede anything having to do with the lake setback regulations. Ms. Paretchan confirmed for Councilor Olson that uses were allowed in the 25 -setback prior to this amendment, the allowed uses were just being expanded. The amended language of the ordinance on p 79 of the packet clarified the expanded uses. Under current Code, a pool could be built as long as it was an in - ground pool. Other structures, such as barbecues, were considered accessory structures that must meet setbacks and were not allowed currently in the 25 -ft Oswego setback. The revisions constituted an expansion of the uses allowed. Councilor Moncrieff confirmed with Ms. Paretchan that compliance with natural resources would not be affected by any decision Council made on this matter. Mr. Boone added property owners had certain uses under R-7.5, and if there was a natural resource or a hillside, those rules had to be addressed. The ordinance allowed special setbacks and uses in the 25 -ft area, but it did not deal with Sensitive Lands, slopes, etc. Councilor Hennagin asked how finished grade was determined on sloped property. It seemed that installing a pool below finished grade would be allowed, but Mr. Barman testified there was a problem. Ms. Paretchan answered if land had to be filled to create a level area for a pool that would be regulated by flood plain standards if they applied to that property. Councilor Hennagin asked if a homeowner could excavate rather than fill to create the level area, which would require a City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 21 July 6, 2010 retaining wall closer to the house. Ms. Paretchan replied that the retaining wall would be allowed in the setback with these regulations, but there would be a height limitation. Mr. Boon believed that in Mr. Barman's case, a retaining wall higher than 30 in would be required along the water front to bring the pool to a reasonable elevation in relation to the house. There would not be a flood plain issue because fill was allowed in that area. He would have to excavate closer to the house for the pool to be in -ground. Councilor Moncrieff believed the Planning Commission had done a thorough job and agreed that the City could have a more uniform standard of development, and if the Lake Corp was inclined to have a stricter form of development, they certainly had the ability to do that. Councilor Moncrieff moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2556, Exhibit Al (LU 08- 0052A), and direct Staff to return with Findings and Conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on July 20, 2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Olson asked Mr. Barman what he would be do about building a pool if the ordinance to expand uses in the 25 -ft setback was not being considered. Could he build one under the current rules? Mr. Barman replied it would be very difficult. He could still have a pool, but it would take up his property and the pool would have to be very narrow. He added that this issue affected many residents, not just him. Councilor Olson said she had two concerns about the ordinance as written. She was uncertain why the original 25 -ft setback was created, but assumed it had to do with view corridors, and to have consistency along the lake. Some properties would be regulated by this City ordinance and others would have to meet Lake Corp limits, so different properties would be treated differently depending on their water and property lines. She understood Lake Corp's desire to have some consistency on their properties surrounding the lake, and a lot of the restrictions made sense, especially the 500 ft vs. 800 ft and the height limitation not being 18 ft. Councilor Jordan expressed concern that boathouse was removed and "accessory and water dependent structures" were discussed. The new ordinance would allow additional accessory structures not related to water usage, an 800 -sq ft, 18 -ft high studio, for example, that would not be allowed under current Code. She understood the desire to keep things equitable throughout the city, but lakefront property was very dissimilar from typical back yards and she was concerned the new allowances would potentially create too many new structures not related to lake use. Councilor Hennagin agreed. Initially, he thought all property owners should be treated the same, but the view corridors were important. He could perceive that people could build things that would disturb the view corridors. He believed some items requested by Lake Corp were justified. He was not sure a swimming pool should be treated the same as other structures because they do not obstruct views when built at grade as required. He was considering sending the ordinance back because he did not favor the ordinance as drafted. Councilor Olson noted Council had discussed creating a lakefront zone as part of the Palisades Neighborhood Plan because lake properties were unique and should not necessarily be treated the same as the rest of the properties in the same zone. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion failed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Moncrieff voting `yes,' and Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan voting 'no.' [3-4] Councilor Jordan believed Council should accept the Planning Commission's recommendation but amend the maximum roof height from 18 ft to 13.5 ft measured from the lake surface and the maximum footprint from 800 sq ft to 500 sq ft for accessory structures as requested by the Lake Corp. She believed "boathouse" should be specified because "accessory structure and water dependent structure" were too broad. She preferred that Staff return to Council with changes prior to the August recess, but Mayor Hoffman commented that there was not time. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 21 July 6, 2010 Councilor Moncri ff moved for tentative approval of Ordinance 2556 (LU 08-0052 A), with the amendment of the boathouse maximum h ight to be 13.5 ft, measur d from Oswego Lak surface elevation, and a maximum 500 -sq ft footprint. Councilor Johnson seconded. Mr. Boone noted that the City measured height to the highest point while the Lake Corp measured to the midpoint of the roof. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Jordan clarified for Councilor Olson that she wanted a change because the table was very explicit on certain things and the 13.5 ft was measured from the surface of the lake. Councilor Olson verified with Ms. Paretchan that another Planning Commission meeting could be held to readdress this item and have it return to City Council in the next month. Mayor Hoffman reminded the Council that there was a motion and second on the table. Councilor Hennagin understood that according to the motion, the 13.5 -ft limit would only apply to boathouses and that a studio built within the 25 -ft setback could be 18 -ft tall. He agreed the ordinance should return to Council at a later date to fully capture the Council's intent. Mr. McIntyre asked that Council's action bring the findings back on August 3, not July 20, 2010. Councilor Jordan wanted clarification that height was measured from the lake surface and to better define what accessory structures and water -dependent structures were allowed before she could support the motion. Councilor Tierney stated he wanted to make a friendly amendment to the motion, substituting the table on p 8 in its entirety, the Lake Corp's recommendation, for Section 50.22.030 (2) on p 7, which would avoid creating confusion. He was uncertain Mr. Barman's issue would be resolved by the change. Councilor Johnson seconded the amendment to the motion. Councilor Tierney confirmed that the lights, steps, docks, decks, and Jacuzzis could now be 30 - inches high, but he was unclear about building a below -ground swimming pool. That conflict was the only thing that troubled him. Ms. Paretchan clarified that pools were not listed in the table, and could be added to address Mr. Barman's issue. Mayor Hoffman observed that Council was trying to wordsmith on the fly, work that should have been done at the Planning Commission and Staff level. Councilor Hennagin understood Councilor Tierney's motion was to substitute p 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2, for the proposed revisions shown on p 7 of the packet. This was a strike -out version of 50.22.030, Lake Corp's version. Mayor Hoffman restated that the motion and second were to accept the Lake Corp proposal, which was shown on page 8, with the addition of pools. Ms Andreades suggested that pools could be included under the section addressing 30 -in, or under the section with the barbecue and fireplace with a maximum height of 6 ft, because the sloped lots issue regarded width rather than height. Steps, docks, decks would be 30 -in high because they were generally narrower, and a pool, being wider, should not be lumped together with those narrower structures. If pools were to be added, she suggested they be added to the section that addressed larger structures. In response to concerned comments about having a 6 -ft high pool, she explained the height would depend on the retaining wall's location. Mayor Hoffman interjected that he had a serious problem with how the subject matter was being presented. Councilor Moncrieff noted that the Planning Commission had spent over six months studying this issue and the Code language very carefully. She had confidence that the Planning Commissioners, after they took all the input, including that from the Lake Corp, came up with the best decision they City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 21 July 6, 2010 could. She was confident in their ability to make the best decision for the community since they were looking at this from a community -wide standpoint. Mayor Hoffman noted that the motion failed 3 to 4. [see above] He called for a recess and reconvened the Council meeting at 10:25 p.m. Councilor Tierney restated his motion was substitute the table from p 8 for Section 2 in its entirely, which was contained in the Ordinance 2556 on p 79 of the packet, and adopt/retain the language in Section 1, which was the same language. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting `yes,' and Mayor Hoffman voting `no.' [6-1] Councilor Jordan noted that the motion had nothing to do with specific issues regarding pools on lake front properties, and requested that Staff consider and discuss the issue with the Planning Commission and return to Council at some future date with whatever they deemed appropriate. City Council took a brief recess at 10:28 p.m. 8.2 Resolution 10-39, approving an adjustment to compensation for non -represented employees Megan Phelan, Human Resources Director, presented the details and considerations regarding the request to authorize a cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) increase of 1.5%, effective July 1, for non -represented employees. The fiscal impact of the proposal, about $93,000 annually, was included in the budget approved in June. A 1.5% COLA increase would help maintain appropriate separation between non -represented and represented employees, while providing equity for confidential employees. In May or June of 2009, represented employees began contributing toward their health insurance for the first time, with a 2.5% contribution July 1, 2009, and a 5% contribution effective July 1, 2010. These contributions would offset the 1.5% increase slightly. Councilor Tierney clarified the contribution was 2.5% of the medical insurance costs, not of the employee's salary and applauded the management team for implementing the contributions. He said the compression issue struck home and asked what the target gap was for compression. Ms. Phelan replied she had done a lot of evaluating of different City departments but did not settle on one particular number. When incentivizing Staff to move into management roles, something significant was required; 10% resonated with people and seemed to be an average across various departments, so that was a rule of thumb for an estimate. Councilor Tierney asserted that it would be helpful to firm up that percentage because bargaining employees would be eligible for overtime. He asked if that was factored into compression. Ms. Phelan noted that some non -represented Staff were actually sergeants and eligible for overtime, and confirmed that HR does consider total compensation. Councilor Jordan moved approval of Resolution 10-39, adjusting compensation for non - represented employees with a COLA increase of 1.5%, effective July 1, 2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken. The motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `ay " [7-0] 8.3 Amendment #01 to the Personal Services Contract to Provide Program Managem nt, Construction Management and Permitting Services Relating to the Lake Oswego — Tigard Water Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year 2010-11 David Prock, Deputy Project Director, Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Partnership Supply Program, reviewed the details of the amendment to the Brown & Caldwell Services Contract. He noted one key element of agreement was that each year Staff would return to Council to award the contract to provide the funding for that year's activities, consistent with how the program had been laid out. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 21 July 6, 2010 Mr. Prock added that no concerns had been identified to date to make City Council recommend that the program cease moving forward. Brown & Caldwell's work performance had been excellent. They were keeping on track, staying within budget and moving forward as anticipated. Staff's recommendation was for City Council's approval of the contract. Mayor Hoffman asked whether subcommittee members Councilor Johnson and Councilor Tierney had weighed in on or reviewed this item. Councilor Tierney replied generally, yes; but not specifically. Councilor Hennagin said he had been very pleased with Brown & Caldwell's work with the interceptor sewer. He understood that they were not doing the engineering for the project, but were simply advising the City about the project engineers' work. Mr. Prock agreed that was one aspect, adding that Brown & Caldwell were involved in producing a Project Definition Report, which contained all the various aspects of the entire program, validating what needed to be done and what extent, what the costs would be, the schedule, etc. In addition, Brown & Caldwell would be overseeing and coordinating the activities of the design consultants that the City anticipated hiring in 2011, as well as providing construction management services, monitoring construction, and handling the permitting for the project. The project would involve about 40 separate permits from federal, state and local agencies. Mr. Prock confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that Brown & Caldwell billed by man-hours, and that the contract was not to exceed the amount identified. Councilor Tierney explained that the subcommittee went through a process of defining how this project would be managed and was very convinced that, although it seemed confusing, it was the right approach. Brown & Caldwell managed the whole process associated with the treatment pipe, which would come before City Council, allowing Council to see the consultant firm's handiwork throughout the process. He noted that communication expenses attributed to the project were also included in the contract and not funded from another line item. Councilor Jordan moved to award Amendment #01 in the amount not -to -exceed $5,473,290 to the existing contract with Brown and Caldwell to continue providing Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting Services through 2010-11 as presented. Councilor Johnson seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion Passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Moncrieff, Olson and Tierney voting `aye.' [7-0] Mayor Hoffman recessed the regular meeting of the City Council at 10:40 p.m. to reconvene as the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Hoffman reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 11:40 p.m. 8.4 Award of a Professional Services Contract for Comprehensive Planning Update Services Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the details of the contract for Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC to assist with the Comprehensive Plan update effort and the services the consultant team would provide. The entire contract was for $274,000, but that amount was not guaranteed and depended on the budget allocation being approved in the coming fiscal years. He explained that the contract provided a framework under which tasks and funds could be assigned. For the current fiscal year, the City allocated $100,000, and was in the process of receiving a $74,000 grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development to assist in refining the Goal 9 Economy and Goal 10 Housing sections of the Comprehensive Plan. He understood that Council had questions about the selection process. The City interviewed five teams and received five proposals. Both the interviews and proposals were scored based on seven different criteria, which were evaluated equally. The Cogan Owens Cogan team scored the highest overall. The cost of services criteria involved the hourly rates of the Staff assigned and also some responsiveness and cost control measures built into the proposals. Cogan ranked second in that analysis, so while not the cheapest, Cogan Owens Cogan was not the most expensive. Mr. Egner confirmed for Councilor Olson that Angelo Planning Group had the lowest bid. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 21 July 6, 2010 Councilor Moncrieff moved to award a professional services contract to Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC in an amount not t exceed $275,000 for the period between July 1, 2010 and Jun 30, 2013. Councilor Jordan seconded. Mayor Hoffman believed SERA might be a client of his firm and declared a potential conflict of interest. He also noted that by granting the contract to Cogan Owens Cogan, Council was not granting it to any of the other bidders. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting `aye,' and Councilor Olson voting 'no.' [6-1] 9 ORDINANCES 9.1 Ordinance 2523, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego amending a Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policy to clearly support zone district overlays as a means of implementing neighborhood plans and adoption findings (LU 08-00563-1737) Mayor Hoffman noted that Council had already discussed the Ordinance and asked if there was further discussion. He believed the ordinance went with the Glenmorrie Zone. Mr. Egner explained this was the infill recommendation; the Comprehensive Plan amendment language. Out of the infill discussion, there were two sets of recommendations: one dealt with the Code and one addressed a plan policy amendment. The plan policy amendment had been delayed and this was the follow-up to that amendment. He confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that infill Code did not require a zoning district or an overlay zone. The task force had recommended this particular policy amendment to codify a policy the City currently employed. Nothing required an overlay zone, but it was specifically making it clear that an overlay zone was one way of actually implementing a neighborhood plan. Councilor Jordan moved to approve Ordinance 2523 amending the Comprehensive Plan to support zoning districts and zone district overlays as a means of implementing neighborhood plans. Councilor Hennagin seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting `aye,' and Councilor Tierney voting 'no.' [6-1] 9.2 Ordinance 2555, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending Article 12.51 of the Lake Oswego Code relating to the membership of the 50+ Advisory Board Councilor Jordan stated she had brought this item forward because the nine -member Advisory Board had five openings. There was no reason for nine members on this board. No other board, except Sustainability, had more than seven members. The purpose of this item was to realign the Board to a more appropriate size. Mayor Hoffman reminded that Janine Dunphy had discussed this item during Citizen Comment. Councilor Hennagin moved to enact Ordinance 2555. Councilor Olson seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting `aye.' [7-0] 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 10.1 Councilor Information Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Letter Regarding Urban Reserve and Rural Reserve Mayor Hoffman noted this item was brought forward by Councilor Olson regarding the DLCD letter that she, Councilor Moncrieff and Mayor Hoffman had received. Mr. Boon reported that Metro and three counties, in order to establish urban reserves, conducted hearings, where councilors and mayors testified. Metro and the counties made their decision which City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 21 July 6, 2010 included designating the Stafford Basin area as an urban reserve, anticipating that it be brought in for urban purposes over the next 40-50 years. Anyone wishing to object to that designation had until July 14 to file their objection with the DLCD. The objection must clearly state the grounds for the objection and what rules were allegedly being violated. Staff needed a Council decision as to whether or not an objection was to be filed. Lake Oswego's neighboring cities of Tualatin and West Linn were also looking at the issue of objection, particularly the City of West Linn, who retained the services of land use attorney Jeff Condit to see whether or not there were grounds to object. Mr. Boone's office had not conducted an independent review. Tom Coffee, a planning consultant for West Linn, advised Mr. Boone that West Linn was expected to file an objection. The City Attorney for Tualatin also expected the City of Tualatin to file an objection. The question was whether City Council wanted to file an objection, and if so, in what format should it be done. Councilor Hennagin said he did not know enough about the rules in detail and would have to rely on a land use or City attorney to advise whether there was a rule violation that Council could allege. The City opted out of the lawsuit, and unless someone advised him that there was a basis for filing an objection with DLCD, he did not support filing an objection. Councilor Olson clarified that the Council did not opt out of a lawsuit, but opted out of spending $1,800 to find if there were legal grounds, and there were, and if the City wanted to share in that information they probably still could. There were many objections based on the criteria set by Metro for designation of urban and rural reserves that were not met in some peoples' opinion. The reason for objecting was to stay in the record. By not objecting, Council would be agreeing that Stafford should be designated urban. Tualatin and West Linn both found there were grounds for objection. Mr. Boone added that the statute required that Metro and the counties take into consideration certain factors, not criteria. The best argument was that the adopted findings inadequately addressed those factors. There may be grounds to appeal the inadequacy of the findings, which may cause a remand back to Metro and the counties to readopt some findings in order to address those. The ultimate question, in his opinion, was whether or not urban services could be provided, which was a factor that Metro would have to consider. There were two arguments. One involved interpreting what "can" meant; defining whether urban services would be provided by neighboring cities, which was a problem if the Cities said no, or whether it was possible that urban services could be provided in the next 40-50 years. If Metro made a finding that over time, perhaps a City would step up to do it, which may well justify such a finding. However, there had to be solid findings to raise that issue to DLCD. In conversations with the representatives from the two other cities, he believed there were probably grounds to challenge the adequacy of the findings. Whether that was the ultimate win, he did not know. One could always go back and fix findings. Maybe the ultimate question was the interpretation of "can". Councilor Jordan believed the crux of the matter was whether Council just wanted to be on record that they did not think Stafford should be developed ever. This whole process had been very difficult getting to this point. Clackamas County was expected to speak very strongly about not adding any land to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in the next five years. There was no need for it now and no reason to do it. More time was needed to do what Metro said was a part of the process for bringing any land in, which was to outline all the government services and issues prior to bringing any land into the UGB. It seemed that if Metro had not met all the factors, they could still come back and do that, and DLCD would probably not overturn all the work that had occurred over all this time when a lot more people agreed than disagreed. They kept pushing the idea that nobody was ready or interested in developing right now, but this was a 40-50 year plan. It was very difficult to say that the City would not ever be able to provide services out there. Mayor Hoffman restated that he was comfortable with the decision Council made a couple of months ago in deciding not to join West Linn to figure out whether there was a legitimate issue. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 21 July 6, 2010 Councilor Olson moved to fil an obj ction with DLCD by July 14, 2010. Councilor Tierney seconded. A voice vot was taken and th motion failed with Councilors Olson and Tierney voting `aye,' and Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Jordan voting `no.' [2-5] Mayor Hoffman noted the email the Councilors had received from Councilor Johnson announcing her resignation effective July 31. The process for filling her position had already started. The announcement for the Council vacancy would be in the Lake Oswego Review this Thursday. It did not make the Hello LO, but it would be in the LO Down that week, and on the website. Resumes and applications needed to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2010. Interviews would probably be scheduled on July 27, in hopes that a decision could be made that day and appoint that person on August 3. 10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernm ntal Committees 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11.1 City Manager 11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 11.2 City Attorney 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Hoffman, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 21 July 6, 2010