Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-07-10 SpecialCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES July 10, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council. meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. on July 10, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Public Input on Second Look Task Force Report Mayor Hoffman thanked everyone for attending this third listening session relating to the Second Look Task Force report. He reviewed the public process still to come, noting the several public hearings and other many opportunities for citizens to give input. He explained the testimony procedures and time limits. He went over the rules of decorum that would help maintain the City Council Chambers as a forum for civil public discourse and promote an atmosphere that was fair, courteous, and respectful of different points of view. • Jim Labbe, Audubon Society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland He stated that he was here on behalf of the Audubon Society (with over 500 member households in Lake Oswego) and the Tualatin Riverkeepers. He submitted a four-page memo listing additional specific comments relating to the Task Force recommendations (q.v.). He spoke of their concern at how the City would flesh out the details of changes to provide flexibility (asking how the City defined that) that would reduce unnecessary burdens, and still maintain the protection of natural resources. He commented that the increased reliance on technical review and on the good faith of individuals was a concern to the Society. He mentioned their strong opposition to rolling back any of the existing uplands or riparian protections. He indicated that their paramount concern was that, at the time of a development application submittal, the only thing protecting a resource was what was in the Code. • Judith Werner, 4266 Woodside Circle She read from a prepared statement (q.v.). She stated her strong support of the Task Force recommendations for protecting resources with more backyard flexibility. She argued that self- regulation did not work because self-interest took no thought of others. She indicated that she was a 40 -year Lake Oswego resident who now lived in a condominium on a stream corridor, which natural resource increased the property value of the condominiums. She asked the City to address the existing lake pollution problem. She mentioned the survey that found that 8 out of 10 residents agreed with the continued protection of natural resources. She contended that the community working together to achieve the best quality of life possible for the greatest number of people was in the self-interest of all. • Kent Myers, 13580 SW Goodall Road He indicated that he was a 47 -year resident. He argued that the City has gone too far in trampling on the right of private property owners as described in the U.S. Constitution, Fifth and Fourteenth City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 July 10, 2010 Amendments. He expressed his concern that, with people losing money in this current recession and property values plummeting by 40%, the City was now putting `shadows' on properties that made it difficult to sell property at all. He recounted a story from his days at Willamette University when the police identified a thief in his fraternity by the purple fingers that the thief displayed from the dusting that the police had given to several billfolds. He contended that, in many cases, the City was stealing citizens' properties, an accusation that he was comfortable making because he knew the difference between a discussion and a moral transgression.: He indicated that he would look for purple fingers during the Council Note. He commented that he did not think that there was any efficacy in this project. • David Beckett, 17738 Kelok Road, Three Rivers Land Conservancy/Columbia Land Trust He stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 26 year, and owned a half -acre lot with three dozen very large trees. He submitted his comments in writing (q.v.) He argued that the Sensitive Lands program increased property values in Lake Oswego, citing a study done by a Reed College professor. He mentioned the Columbia Land Trust's work with conservation easements and the Backyard Habitat Program. He spoke in support of giving special consideration to those few properties highly constrained by the Sensitive Lands program. • Julie Russell, 1150 Shukart Lane She indicated that she has lived here for 21 years. She described her half -acre plus lot in the planned neighborhood development of Palisades Terrace, which included open space, a woodsy area on a hill, and plenty of wildlife. She indicated that she had no problems with restrictions on the natural back portion of her lot but she saw no sense in designating the entire lot as a tree grove, as her 3400 square foot house and other developed residential elements occupied the front portion of the lot. . She stated that she was not against the City's efforts to protect resources but she was concerned that the City do it correctly. She recalled informing the City10 years ago during the first round that her property designation was wrong because there were no trees around her house. However, the City informed her that it wanted to keep her whole lot as a natural resource inventory item and denied her request, while giving her a copy of LOC 48.17.15, which exempted her from the restrictions on her lot. She asked why the City maintained a tree grove overlay on a private citizen's whole lot when there was no tree grove. She said that she wanted this wrong designation changed but staff told her that there was an $800 fee to file a map correction. When she protested, staff told her to wait a while, as the situation would likely change. She asked if there was a fee or not. She asked why the City had tree grove restrictions in a planned neighborhood development if it allowed exemptions from the restrictions. She indicated that these things did not make sense to her. She argued that the City did not need to regulate everything that people were doing in their backyards in order to maintain the environment and the beauty of Lake Oswego. She asked why private property owners should pay taxes if the City intended to regulate their backyards. She asked the Council to develop a more flexible policy and to make sure that its maps for regulating properties were correct. • Adra Barlow, 2 Buckingham Terrace She indicated that she and her husband were 21+ year residents and small business owners. She read from her prepared testimony (q.v.). She described her work as a volunteer. She mentioned that they received no information about possible property restrictions at the time they purchased this home in Westridge. She said that later they learned that the City proposed their entire property, except for where the house sat, as a Sensitive Lands overlay because it sat adjacent to another private property with undeveloped hillside. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 July 10, 2010 She stated that she did not believe that the City should be putting restrictions on any privately owned lands. She held that the restrictions were arbitrary and not applied equitably throughout the City. She expressed her frustration that the Mayor and the Council were not listening to the people, as she expected the City and public servants to listen to the residents. She spoke in support of a voluntary program. Bob Eidson, 14825 Rainbow Lane He reported that he spoke with Metro informally. Metro staff told him that Lake Oswego was the most restrictive community with regard to land use control and sensitive lands. He cited the staff person's comment that one could not eat a pig all in one bite, that one started with the bacon and ended with ham hocks. He commented that he thought that that pretty well described what was going on here. He expressed his appreciation for the Council listening but asked why there was no feedback to the public that would allow citizens to address any remaining Council concerns. He asked why the City went so far beyond the existing code, as Metro staff told him that there was no justification for doing so. He said that Metro staff told him that it was okay to apply these restrictions solely to public lands. He asked why the confusion between streams, gutters, and trickles. He asked why the City has not conducted a survey of affected properties or of citizens to find out what the actual opinions of the people were. He asked why First Addition and Lake Grove were exempt from the program, as both areas had plenty of trees. He stated his view that there was no justification to selectively call a group out and ignore other groups that fit the same criteria. • Betty Buford, 5 Camelot Court She stated that she was a member of the Audubon Society and trained in the Backyard Habitat Program. She commented that the reason why that program was so successful was that it was voluntary, and not regulatory. She informed the Council that if the members thought that the citizens would go home and shut up after these listening sessions, they would soon realize that this was only the beginning. She mentioned that at least one City Councilor understood the discomfort of having a proposed Sensitive Lands overlay designation on her property because that Councilor told her and her husband of her relief upon finding out that she did not have the designation. • Denny Hageman, 17841 Cardinal Drive He indicated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 18 years. He mentioned that a voluntary community organization to which he belonged has maintained an aeration system for the past 12 years to protect the water quality in the Blue Heron Canal. He commented that voluntary participation was important in protecting the environment. He stated his agreement with all comments in opposition to this 'draconian' legislation, which he characterized as continued government intrusion on private property and property rights. He commented that it was unbelievable how the current regulations as written suggested that the affected property owners did not have the intelligence or responsibility to protect their personal habitat. He discussed the financial risk that the City ran in taking people's properties, citing the U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment. He read a series of notes from the court rulings against government takings and on behalf of the property owner (Notes 204, 209, 223, 226, 229, 245) clarifying various points about takings, just compensation, and inverse condemnation (q.v.). • Robert L. Naumann, 18300 Bryant Road He stated that he has lived here 37 years. He read from his prepared testimony (q.v.). He characterized the Sensitive Lands Ordinance as unfair and expensive to property owners who City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 July 10, 2010 wanted to remove trees. He supported the City managing its open spaces. He argued that wildlife fences did not confine children or dogs. He questioned how many people would plant trees once they realized the possibility of the City declaring their property a resource area if they did plant trees. He held that earlier citizen participation would have resulted in less community conflict and higher government credibility. • Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court He referenced the ESEE analysis prepared by Metro in March 2004 that presented potential regulatory prograr options and tradeoff. He -indicated that Metro prepared this document when people protested its method of protecting property. He contended that Metro's definition of protect meant to reduce or to take away private property rights, and that an ESEE analysis was the process a government used to rationalize its desire to protect land, or to reduce private property rights. He referenced the argument that the Foothills District, while it was a flood plain, should not be protected because it was economically more beneficial to develop it. He reviewed the major headings of the ESEE analysis, which he indicated was available from Metro. He commented that the acquisition options were all high cost options that the City did not have the money for, given that it was spending $1 million down in Foothills. He mentioned restoration activities, restoration grants, habitat education, information resources, tax incentives, technical assistance program, and volunteer activities. • Bill Gaar, 16872 Quail Court, Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) Co-chair He presented a letter from the Board, including a list of 22 recommended changes to the Task Force report (q.v.). He indicated that the Board reviewed the Task Force report line -by-line and unanimously supported the report. He explained that their recommended changes focused on flexibility and discretion within the Sensitive Lands overlay. He observed that the Board did have a bias on this issue, given its role as an advocate for Lake Oswego's natural resources. • Elaine M. Burke, 16121 Nola Court She read from her prepared testimony (q.v.). She stated her support of the City's Sensitive Lands program, the Task Force report, and the Audubon Society/Tualatin Riverkeepers' testimony. She reviewed her degrees in ecology and studies in environmental physiology that gave her an informed perspective for her support of natural resource protections through the overlays. • Bonnie Grey, 14855 Twin Fir Road She presented graphics of her one plus -acre property with a creek and trees in the backyard, on which she has lived for over 50 years. She stated that, under the overlays on the map, they could not do anything with their property, nor could they sell it. She described how that the City's efforts to restore the creek in 1997 have turned a desirable property into a very undesirable property by turning a deep creek into a shallow creek that has eroded 10 feet of their property and engulfed trees. She presented photos of the erosion, noting that, under the regulations, they could do nothing about the creek except watch it erode away more and more of their property, while waiting over the past three years for the City to keep its promise to fix the creek. She mentioned the culvert that the City installed on their property going under the street. She said that it was the City's responsibility to maintain the culvert at five feet deep, yet it was at three feet deep and the water spilling over eroded more of their property. She indicated that she did not have confidence that the City would restore the creek to the state it was in when she was younger and was deep enough for fingerling trout and crawdads. She reiterated that she could not sell her property like this. She commented that they had trusted the City with respect to the sanctions put on the property. She mentioned that, when the City fixed the creek and made it worse, it added more trees without asking her permission as the property owner. She asked what they were supposed to do. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 July 10, 2010 • David Str iff, 18355 Lothlori n Way He observed that few people have heard of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance: of those who have, most had an erroneous understanding of what it meant. He commented that it was difficult to educate everyone, and yet it was critical to make sure that the people understood the ordinance. He mentioned the program's lack of environmental data monitoring water quality and the lack of a fish and wildlife census. He discussed the unfairness aspect of the program. He presented an aerial photo of his property that gave the erroneous impression that his backyard was entirely forested; it did not show the deck, hot tub, and patios. He commented that when one looked at properties from the street, it did not make sense that one property was designated on the map, and the next apparently identical lot was not. He referenced the property owners' comments of the damage to property values caused by the Ordinance. He commented that he would like to see those speaking from an environmental perspective volunteer their properties for overlays. He quoted from John Wood, who said, "If you don't have time to do it right, when do we have time to do it over?" He speculated that anything voted on on July 20 would have to be done over. • Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Drive She stated that the City has unnecessarily and mistakenly proposed her 25 -year old residential property (developed and undividable) for a Sensitive Lands overlay. She indicated that her overall input was that the Task Force recommendations missed the point. She argued that the Task Force's charge did not address the heart of citizen concerns, and therefore, any comments on tweaking the program were not productive in this contentious situation that needed real solutions. She commented that it was unfortunate that this sensitive lands issue has become so contentious, as they had common ground as Lake Oswego citizens who cared about natural resources and the beauty of the community. She alleged that there has been an effort to paint those with concerns about the program as right wing extremists intent on undoing all environmental regulations, which she described as divisive and unhelpful nonsense. She contended that they needed solutions and an acknowledgment that all citizens in the community had equal rights and equal value, no matter where they lived, what their political views were, or how long they have lived in the community. She spoke of treating each other in a more respectful and neighborly way. She indicated her confidence that there were solutions, but noted that it would take all Council members working together and on behalf of all homeowners to reach them. She argued that until there was a program that made sense to property owners, was fair and equitable, and did not involve politics, privilege, economic development, and zoning trades and games, the issue would not go away. She commented that she has noticed that the momentum and concern has been building over the last year, given a handpicked task force, a rushed vote, 63 recommendations that missed the point, and recruiting the Audubon Society to attack concerned citizens. She emphasized that this was a personal issue with the government trespassing into people's backyards. She urged the community to stop the political nonsense and work together on real solutions that satisfied Metro, protected the community's real natural resources, and insured a fair program that valued all property owners. She commented that one test of this program would be whether the Council members would want the Sensitive Lands program applied to their own personal properties. She argued that when each Council member was not alarmed about having his/her personal property designated as sensitive lands, then perhaps the Council will have developed a program that would garner community respect and support. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18 July 10, 2010 • Emma Lee Weibel, 2020 SW Carman Drive She said that she and her husband had a 2.5 -acre lot with the back portion covered in trees, which her husband planted in 1953 and maintained all these years to the point where they were now too large to cut without a permit. She indicated that their maintaining that portion in a largely natural state was the reason the City gave them for requiring it to stay that way. She explained that the overlay, while not on the whole property, was sufficient to ruin the value of the property. She spoke of their need to take care not to invade the overlay with forbidden activities because Big Brother was monitoring to prevent a property owner from invading his/her own land. She mentioned that a tree recently fell on the land and missed a house in the development next to them by inches. She suggested that making people maintain trees in a certain area was not always a great thing. She argued that no one should be required to maintain their land so that the rest of the community could enjoy the view and the wildlife when others were not required to contribute to that maintenance; if the community wanted the land for its benefit, then the community should buy it at market value. She emphasized that they had no plans for developing their land partly because of their 50 -year old business. She contended that the City's proposed action amounted to cruel indifference to the personal needs of the citizens, given this environment in which many elderly people lost significant portions of their retirement savings in the stock market. She stated that it has been demonstrated beyond question that this scheme detracted from the monetary value of the land. She held that sensitive lands increasing the value of the land was not a reasonable argument coming from a condominium owner because the land circumstances were very different for condominiums. She mentioned several other already demonstrated statements, including that not everyone with sensitive lands was being subjected to the harsh regulations, that this action was not necessary to satisfy the State or Metro, and that the City's choice of certain riparian lands over other riparian lands was capricious and unfair (though not without reasons). She described those pushing this reform as shameless in their willingness to go ahead with something that was illogical, not environmentally sound planning, and discriminatory. She commented that the most offensive action was the City's belief that the citizens would be stupid enough not to notice what it was doing if it framed it in the right way. She stated that she has run out of patience and was at a loss for arguments for logic and fairness. She mentioned that environmental effectiveness was not an argument that appeared to get the Council's attention. She said that she knew now that this plan has been long in the making on the part of some Council members, who knew that they could not win their position if they campaigned on this plan. She alleged that even now the City was keeping this plan quiet and notifying only those necessary, leaving those affected and the rest of the community largely unaware of this plan and so shocked upon learning of it that they could scarcely be convinced it was happening. She asked why the Council believed that its actions would be admired by future citizens if the citizens today did not admire or respect this plan. • Joel Christensen, 18311 Lothlorien Way He indicated that he has lived on this property for eight years but it has been in the family for forty years. He stated that, over the last 30 years that he has witnessed the property and those surrounding it, he has found nothing to suggest that anybody has done anything but take care of the land in a pristine way. He said that he was personally offended by the suggestion that private property owners were not good stewards of the land. He referenced the comment about studies and the value of homes. He indicated that, while the statement that a tree canopy and natural areas improved the value of homes was accurate, he has read many of those studies and drawn two conclusions from them. First, most studies were done around public land and its impact on private land. Second, the studies noted that there was a threshold where the canopy level was so high that it started to decrease the value. He indicated City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 July 10, 2010 that the optimal percentage was around 45% to 46%. He noted that Lake Oswego's canopy was in the 60% range. He argued that with its current tree ordinances, Lake Oswego far exceeded the optimal canopy coverage already and was at a level where the canopy was detrimental in and of itself. He indicated that none of the studies that he read had any data about any property actually designated as sensitive lands and the designation's impact on value. He referenced the testimony from several individuals over the last year of direct and measurable property devaluation because of the designation. He stated for the record that he opposed this program. He mentioned the two reasonable options that he saw before the Council. One was to drop this proposal and return to the current ordinances. He commented that he has seen no data indicating that those ordinances were not effective in keeping Lake Oswego at the forefront of conservation, and he has seen no degradation on his property in 40 years. The second option was to apply the Ordinance to every property in Lake Oswego, because that was fair. In that case, it would not matter in a common vote of the whole city whether people were for or against the designations because everyone was treated equally. • Dianne Cassidy, 18280 Indian Creek Drive She indicated that she had no sensitive lands on her personal property but the Bryant Woods Neighborhood Association did on its common land. She commented that she had not intended to speak today but was inspired to do so by the many inaccuracies stated by the Audubon Society representatives. She referenced their comments that "without sensitive lands protections, the resource would depend on the good faith of all individuals," "the resource is only protected by what is in the Code," and "self-interest does not work." She argued that all they had in a society was the good faith of individuals because government could not police enough for everyone who would rebel against regulations, whatever they might be. She said that she did not know where this distrust came from to say that without regulation, people would destroy their own properties, an argument that she characterized as insane. She argued that codes protected nothing, people did. She stated that the residents cared better for the Bryant Woods common area than the City did for public lands. She indicated that they have cleared invasive species and replanted native species with no regulations or code forcing them to do so. She commented that she took good care of her backyard because it was in her self-interest to do so. She contended that self-interest was the only thing that worked, citing the beauty of Lake Oswego today as evidence of the effectiveness of self-interest. She held that the worldview suggested by defense of the regulations and belief that the government should be more involved in citizens' lives ignored the truth of human nature. She argued that appealing to self-interest would get the City further in where it wanted to go. She stated that, in the 34 years she has lived here, she has never seen such regulatory overbearance and intrusion into people's lives as this Sensitive Lands overlay, for which she saw no justification. She commented that if the Council sensed disrespect from the public, it came from the City's disrespect of the public. • Tom Zinser, 17920 SW Westview Road He mentioned that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 43 years and built a house in the middle of the woods. He indicated that, as a member of the Oregon Small Woodland Association, he was fully aware of how to take care of trees on his 7 -acre lot. He recalled that, at the time he purchased the lot from Herb Kruse, the Palisades neighborhood was under development. He discussed his concerns regarding the City's notification of his property's designation as sensitive lands. He mentioned that he actually threw the little card away without reading it because he did not recognize the new logo and it was small print. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 July 10, 2010 He contended that what staff called `housekeeping' were actually amendments to LOC 50.16. He pointed out that the document has grown from an original 19 pages to 60 to 70 pages. He commented that he has never seen a printed copy of the document, but instead he had to download all the amendments online. He described this as a shame, given the severity of the Code. He noted that, although he has attended most Planning Commission and City Council meetings on this issue, he has never seen anything addressing the larger parcels of land. He asked what he was supposed to do if the City imposed an overlay on his land. He indicated that he had two acres dedicated as a garden and a recreational area and another three acres for his house site from which he has cleared all ivy and blackberries. He said that he has not had time to clear the brush from remainder of his acreage, and it was a fire danger. He commented that the brochures and conversations generally spoke of protecting all the land, and not of protecting a little section in one corner of Lake Oswego. He argued that it did not make sense to pick out 400 or 500 homes when 30,000 people lived in the community. He expressed his regret at having been a tree hugger and a greenhead. • Vickie Bednark, 2681 Rivendell Road She asked for disclosure of a list of the 500 Audubon Society member households in Lake Oswego. She mentioned her attendance at the various meetings on this issue and her research into what the rules and regulations meant. She stated that she found it shameful that 40 -year residents had to try to justify their rights and privileges as citizens. She said that she was shocked when the Council (and she voted for many of the members) thought that the citizens voting for them meant that they had the right to go into someone's backyard and take away their rights. She asked the Council members to think about who they were and what they were doing in this situation. She questioned the statement that their intent was to protect sensitive lands when the regulations did not touch major bodies of water in the city. She described what she saw as capricious and unfair selection of one property over another with terrible consequences to those impacted. She suggested that the person who listed her academic accomplishments volunteer to make her property subject to these deed restrictions. She urged the Council members to think about who they were and what they were doing. She described them as the stewards of the city and protectors of the funds that the taxpayers gave them to spend. She applauded the City for the transformation of the downtown into something beautiful, but reiterated that this proposed action was not right. • Art Scevola, 1454 Glenmorrie Drive He said that he has lived here since 1993. He held that the primary issue was the reduction of some citizens' use and enjoyment of property and its value to the exclusion of others, which was a property rights issue. He commented that he had nothing to say about the micromanagement inherent in these recommendations because they did not matter. In referring to the loss of property without compensation, he quoted from Benjamin Franklin: "When you're willing to trade your liberty for security, you will have neither." He encouraged people to read his comments and Shannon Berlant's comments from the June 30 meeting. He commented that Ms. Berlant asked the right questions and that people needed to understand those questions. He mentioned his use of the phrase 'wax paper taxpayer,' which referred to a citizen who was just living and acting right but, when heated up, he/she broke. He suggested to the Council that the citizens would take action to prevent the implementation of these recommendations if the Council passed them on July 20. He contended that their petition would succeed because there was a sentiment in the city running 9 to 1 against the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, as demonstrated by the testimony heard today. He commented that the citizens City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 July 10, 2010 had the right and ability to turn this around at the ballot box by voting against those supporting this program. He read a principle practiced by Rotary Club members: "For everything that we say or do, there is a four way test: is it the truth: Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"" • Aimee Corso, 18323 Lothlorien Way She indicated that 75% of her Westridge Neighborhood property (28 -year-old single-family home, undividable lot) was proposed for designation. She explained that it had a sloping backyard with an upland tree grove. She asked the Council to hear what the citizens were saying and to take the time needed to resolve this issue in a collective and harmonious way. She mentioned that her profession was public relations. She noted that the City has finally begun to communicate in the last month, citing the postcard that she received as the first thing she has gotten on sensitive lands. She observed that the City should have started its communication efforts a long time ago in order to achieve effective communication with the residents. She advised the Council that, if it passed this program, even with the recommended changes, it would have a big public relations problem on its hands, as this was not what the community wanted. She mentioned that she was a new resident and the target demographic of a young family that the Council wanted to come to Lake Oswego. She stated that they moved here for the schools, the environment, and the opportunities that the city offered. She commented that she represented the young family point of view, as many young families could not be here today. She indicated that she was a staunch environmentalist, yet she wondered whether this was the right thing to do for the environment. If it was, should it be applied to all properties? She said that she could quote her degrees too but any environmentalist would say that applying a sensitive lands program sporadically did not improve the entire ecosystem. She held that her trees were no more valuable than the undesignated trees around the corner. She pointed out that property values followed the same pattern of involvement in one system. If the property value on her land went down because of the tree grove, then that devaluation impacted the property values of undesignated lands in her area. She mentioned that the aerial photograph gave the impression that she had a forest in her backyard instead of a deck and a trampoline. She argued that they could do this in a less stringent way that did not impact property values. She mentioned her sense from the beginning that this has been a `check the box' activity by the Council. She applauded the creation of the Second Look Task Force, but described the process following its presentation of its conclusions as "rushed" with citizens having only a week during the busiest time of the year for young families to make comments before the Council vote. She asked the Council to take the time to work with the citizens so that these regulations could be enacted to protect the environment and restore the great community that she moved here for. (:�-,-1950 tJ • Gary Gibson, 19 EI Greco He mentioned that he and his wife have lived 25 years on this property now designated as sensitive lands. He commented that, although he had not intended to testify again on this issue, he felt compelled to after hearing some of the earlier testimony. He indicated that three of the five homeowners on his street with designated sensitive lands moved in after 1998 and were unaware of the designation on their property until his wife told them recently. He reported that, now that these neighbors understood what the designation meant, he could predict that none of them would vote for any City Council member voting for any sensitive lands ordinance that did not make the property owner the first consideration. He referenced the Reed College professor's study. He indicated his understanding that the professor concluded that trees added value to properties in North, Northeast, and Southeast City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18 July 10, 2010 Portland because these areas did not have many trees. However, adding more trees to the already abundant tree count in Northwest and Southwest Portland devalued the property. He noted that Lake Oswego was more like Southwest Portland than Northeast Portland. He referenced the survey, as he had been one of the 400 respondents. He described the questions as generic and wondered why the response had not been 10 out of 10 wanted to preserve all the natural resources in Lake Oswego. He noted that the survey did not ask the question of whether the citizen wanted to restrict private property ownership. He speculated that 9 out of 10 would not have supported that. He mentioned the credentials brought up earlier. He cited his own credentials as a lawyer, noting his 40 plus years experience in investigation and application of the law. He stated that this was not a matter of zoning, but rather a taking of private property, which was wrong and unfair. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 11:47 a.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 11:58 a.m. • John Hedlund, 240 SW Birdshill Road, Portland, Clackamas County He read from his prepared testimony (q.v.). He described the properties that his family members owned in the Birdshill area for over 50 years. He stated his support for the position of the Lake Oswego Stewards. He agreed that Lake Oswego had an abundance of trees because of the property owners' values and not because of regulations. He agreed that property owner rights were more important than the occasional cutting of trees. He agreed that the ordinance, with regards to tree groves, was a penalty taking from those who have maintained these lands. He asked what was wrong with the way the City did it before the creation of this Ordinance. He encouraged the Council to make the regulations less burdensome, and possibly to abolish them and start over. • Jack Sullivan, 17660 Stafford Road He submitted written comments (q.v.) telling the story of his property and his unsuccessful efforts to annex to the City for 19 years, per the City's requirement that he annex in return for its provision of water to his property in 1988. He commented that the City's request three years ago to annex his property in order to avoid creating an island during the Luscher Farm proposed annexation caused he and his wife some concern regarding the City's reliability. He mentioned their desire to develop their property and annex to the City but they were concerned about retaining access to one of the five possible lots. He commented that they wanted to support the process but they wanted it done right. • Michael Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road He indicated that three-quarters of his property was encumbered with an RP overlay and buffer zone. He encouraged the Council to avoid the dualism of both the environmentalists and the property rights advocates in looking at the situation as black and white. He described the Council's task as finding the middle ground. He commented that the testimony today indicated the need for education. He mentioned the Urban Forest Institute's statement that Lake Oswego had 44.4% tree canopy, and not the 60% mentioned earlier. He suggested including that fact in the Metro compliance package. He mentioned that he would like to hear what the Mayor and the Councilors learned after these listening sessions so that the citizens could see how much the Council has moved from its starting position in response to citizen concerns. He commented that he knew that there was not much that the City could do with the RP (resource protection — riparian areas) but it could move on the RC (resource conservation — tree groves). He supported the Task Force's concept of watershed - based management. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 July 10, 2010 He referenced the Lake Oswego Stewards' representative's comments that things did not go wrong on private properties. He stated that he knew of four things that went wrong in the last three months. However, since regulations did not stop those actions, a strictly regulatory program was probably not the solution; they needed education in order to do better with the land. He argued that the community could do a much better job on handling the invasive ivy on both public and private properties if it valued the land as significant and unique. He held that that took education and working together. He suggested assembling groups in the different watersheds to discuss how best to handle a watershed management approach. Tom Zinser, jr., 18244 Bella Terra Road He argued that the Council and the Mayor needed to take responsibility for this decision. He indicated that he has spoken with the Mayor and several Councilors and heard comments that this was passed long ago and that they could not change anything. He stated that he did not believe that, and held that the Council could change previous legislation. He gave an example of the sentiment of the City towards the citizens. He cited his father's conversations with Planning Director, who responded to his specific and looking for answers questions with a suggestion that he file a lawsuit. He argued that when the City took someone's property value, it had to compensate for that taking. He commented that it was not paying property taxes in the future, but rather paying the taxes that his father paid over the years to make that seven acres a forest. He mentioned an option of cutting the trees down and using the money from the lumber to pay City fines. He indicated that his father would not buck the system until the Council passed this. He agreed with Ms. Buford and the petition that the City had no idea what would occur in terms of citizen protects if this passed. He mentioned an argument that Councilor Moncrieff gave him, that nothing was changing, as it was all simply housekeeping amendments. • David S. Glass, 17288 Blue Heron He described his property as massively impacted by the Ordinance. He indicated that he had significant concerns because he has revised his earlier assumption that the City would make reasonable accommodations to meet his needs in response to his later impression that the City did not care about an individual citizen. He mentioned his feeling that the City planned to commandeer his backyard. He indicated that he had a lot of big trees on his property, which he has thought well of until last year when two trees fell down with the smaller one almost taking out his house. He said that he no longer trusted the trees, and that he lived in fear of what would happen with each windstorm. He commented that he wanted to take down those trees with risk factors. He mentioned that he needed to install a fence around his backyard because he had two large dogs, but, based on the discussion so far, he doubted that the City would let him do so. He commented that that would make him angry. He expressed his concern that these ordinances, instead of being a reasonable land use proposal, were setting up a land grab. He concurred with those earlier who did not trust that the City would handle this in an equitable fashion. • Dan Vizzini, 13830 Verte Court He pointed out that this was the end of one part of a process and the beginning of another part of the process. He commented that the community needed to understand that whatever decision the Council made on July 20 merely set in motion another public process. He noted that the Task Force recommendations included some things that the Council could implement right away but the policy items would go through a long, dynamic public process that would continue to evolve over time. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18 July 10, 2010 He stated that he supported the Task Force report. He described it as balanced and attempting (within strict confines) to address the issues that the Council wanted addressed. He spoke in support of taking a watershed -based approach. He described the idea of applying the regulations to all properties in the city, including public property, as `right on and fair.' He mentioned looking for the public education process to develop a consensus around strict environmental regulations that went beyond sensitive lands to discuss water management. He expressed concern at the lack of financing in the plan. He commented that if the City wanted every person in the community to be invested in natural resources protection, then they needed to look at broad ba -ad ways of funding it: He mentioned that Lake Oswego had a history oi supporting bonding for open spaces. He suggested pursuing market-based solutions, such as the transfer of development rights and credits. He indicated that he had other ideas along those lines that he would be happy to share in the future. He commented that he thought that this could be a community-based solution if the Council began to expand its thinking beyond the Sensitive Lands pieces to look at watersheds and property owners in general. Deanna Zinser, 17920 Westview Road She mentioned that when she called the Lake Oswego Review to ask if a reporter would attend this meeting, the person who answered the phone said "You betcha." She commented that the attitude that she sensed from the Review and the City was that sensitive lands was an important issue. She stated that she resented what was being done to her husband as a result of this situation. She recalled how he fought the surrounding development and how they sacrificed a great deal to keep their property pristine. She argued that it was ludicrous that the City developed the property all around them, and now wanted their private property. She mentioned her husband's extensive knowledge of the Code. She commented that, with all the notes her husband has kept over the years, he had the documentation to answer any question. She contended that the reason why people wanted to live in Lake Oswego was not because of the rules and regulations but because of people like her husband who have sacrificed to care for the land. She mentioned that he did all the work himself because he enjoyed it but he would not enjoy it if the City wanted his property for a park. She recalled a saying, "If you want the park, you have to buy the park." 3.2 Council Comments Councilor Tierney stated that on July 2 he prepared a 2.5 page outline of his thoughts, which began with what he wanted to see. He mentioned gathering e-mail addresses today from citizens bringing different perspectives. He spoke of taking a comprehensive approach, of which land use regulations were but one component. Other components included involving all citizens and a results orientation with goals and measurements. He advocated for taking a watershed -based approach, which would combine the City's programs together in an effort to improve the watershed. He held that this focus would actually do something to protect the natural resources in the eyes of the community, Metro, and others. He commented that, along with many other people who testified, he did not understand why any particular tree grove was selected. He suggested that a watershed -based approach would enable a `defocus' on upland tree areas not directly linked to the watershed. He described a watershed -based approach as striking the middle ground of where the community wanted to go. It would involve policy -level discussions that, while considering the incorporation of Task Force recommendations, went beyond them. He indicated that the recommendations tweaked the program but missed the underlying concern of the community. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 July 10, 2010 He referenced the testimonies of several individuals who have proven themselves good stewards of the land. He commented that, while he did not know how this would fit into a comprehensive look, he wanted to make sure that the program did not punish these land stewards for not taking advantage of their properties when other people were doing so. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with everything Councilor Tierney said. She indicated that, given that the RC (trees) designation was confusing, she wanted to look at removing it from private properties with no associated water resource. She mentioned including consideration of slopes and the City's current code language protecting steep slopes and the properties beneath treed slopes. She pointed out that the City's current regulations did , of protect the resources in a vacuum but instead protected the community, which included protecting the citizens. She supported retaining the RC designation on all public lands. She suggested looking at increasing the stream buffers on public lands only, as part of doing the best possible job they could in protecting the high quality watershed resource on public properties. She mentioned including already dedicated open space on private properties in this review. She commented that not all resources were equal, which made it difficult to understand why a culvert conveying runoff would have the same protection as a perennial stream. She spoke of associating buffer sizes and regulations with the quality and size of the resource. She pointed out that many of the Task Force recommendations would require financial resources. She spoke of the Council looking at the budget for communications. She argued that the City asking the citizens to participate in voluntary invasive species removal in the parks and along the roadways required a financial investment and the work to communicate, coordinate, train, and educate. She commented that the different Friends groups were a great resource and model for the City's efforts. She spoke to budgeting for the restoration and maintenance of the public spaces. She advocated for individual evaluations of the few properties that were totally encumbered or severely impacted, such as the Zinsers, the Weibels, the Greys, and the Salamies. She agreed with the Task Force recommendations for code changes and the Metro model code definition, which would build flexibility into the City Code immediately. She held that these changes would alleviate many concerns about backyard uses mentioned by the citizens, such as trampolines or a vegetable garden within a buffer. She mentioned that she came to this issue from the perspective that Mrs. Buford alluded to because, before she ran for Council, she received a notice that the City proposed her property for sensitive lands mapping. She pointed out that the City had existing overlays and existing Code (LOC 50.16) with regulations. However, the Council realized quickly that the regulations were too rigid and too nebulous to give property owners confidence and security. She indicated that City staff has been looking at how to improve the Code to make it an incentive and not a burden to citizens. She spoke of changes that would make having a Sensitive Lands overlay not something to be feared but rather something that would enhance the quality of the property. She indicated that, when she received her notification of proposed mapping, she called a staff planner who came out to her property to evaluate it. While the planner's evaluation on the ground found no resource on her property, she could understand the citizens' concerns and questions, as it was difficult to see why one property would have a resource and the neighboring property not have a resource. She spoke of the importance of making the designation criteria understandable to all property owners, and of including a designation appeals process that was easy to use and understandable. She commented that ultimately the Council wanted a code that protected the resources, that the community did not fear, and that the whole community embraced. She argued that they should all want the designation voluntarily if the overlays were not unduly burdensome. She recalled owning property in Milwaukie with overlay restrictions, which she had not found burdensome or hurtful in selling her property. She agreed that it was not a black and white issue. She described the Task City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18 July 10, 2010 Force recommendations as going a long way in building flexibility and reasonableness into the existing code. She mentioned the Task Force's suggestions about taking a watershed -based approach and educating the community on the purpose and importance of regulations while encouraging volunteerism at the same time. Mayor Hoffman observed that this public process has been going on since February 2009. He said that he started with the concept that no parcel of land was an island. He commented that the purpose of zoning was to insure that one owner's use of his/her property did not have a significant detrimental impact on another ow: gar's use of his/her property; which provided predictability. He described the Task Force recommendations as `spot on.' He suggested sending the immediate Code fixes, which Ms. Frisbee identified in her June 14, 2010, memo, to the Planning Commission, as Mr. Vizzini suggested. He supported the staff and Task Force recommendations mentioned by Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff for a no fee process. He mentioned that there were also medium-term fixes (the lands entirely designated with an overlay) and long-term fixes (a watershed -based approach and a focus on public lands). He commented that, over the past 18 months, he has consistently viewed this as a Comprehensive Plan issue. He stated that he took responsibility as Mayor to insure the City's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, State statutes, and City Code. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan had 24 pages directing the City to protect tree groves and the wooded character of Lake Oswego. He argued that if the community wanted to change that community value as expressed in the Plan, then it needed to do so in connection with the Comprehensive Plan update. He indicated that they could do it either during the periodic review process or as a post -plan amendment. He mentioned the clear goal posts set out by Metro to regulate riparian lands through mapping and regulations. He noted that the basis of Goal 5 was inventory and developing a program to protect resources. He indicated that he has heard loud and clear that regulation of backyards caused property owners angst and burdened them. He stated that Metro's Title 3 required backyard regulation if there was a creek in the backyard, but it did not require regulation of backyard tree groves. He said that he was comfortable with Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion to re-evaluate the inclusion of small, isolated tree groves not connected with riparian areas, as he thought it would help relieve many of the backyard conflict issues. He agreed that they needed to rethink the restrictions on what people could do with their property. He supported the Task Force recommendations to allow structures and uses that did not require building permits, such as garden structures, sheds, and play structures. He agreed that the City needed to be more flexible in response to the people's requests. He held that they could be true to the Comprehensive Plan, allow protection of significant resources, and allow people to enjoy their property. He mentioned also hearing loud and clear the need for a purposeful and consistent outreach and communication program because people were not getting the information. He recalled that when he talked to property owners, he spent some time clearing up urban myths. He agreed with the assessment that this was a public relations issue. He commented that it was also a City resource issue, and that the Council needed a budget discussion about `feet on the ground' evaluating individual properties. He indicated that, when he visited individual properties, he too had wondered why some of them were designated because he saw landscaping but not wildlife habitat. He agreed that they needed to re -look at the isolated tree groves. He agreed that the City needed to make the program more citizen -friendly in not requiring the $800 fee for a redesignation to correct a City mistake. He indicated that he did not think that a voluntary program would work. He said that, as much as he would like to believe that people were good stewards of their property, in natural resources areas, one saw a "trash of the Commons." He held that resources were not protected in a uniform and consistent fashion. He commented that, since the Comprehensive Plan spoke to regulations, any change to an all -volunteer program would have to get by the Comprehensive Plan, Metro, and the State, which he did not see happening. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 July 10, 2010 He agreed with Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff that they needed to address the issue of undeveloped lands that were totally encumbered. He mentioned the Metro model ordinance approach of avoid, minimize, and mitigate, and the Task Force proposal of the net environmental benefit approach. He supported working on a two-tiered process. He agreed that they needed a more readable and accessible code, which he hoped the code audit would help achieve. He mentioned his hope that the Council would send the long-term project ideas, such as a watershed -based approach and doing more invasive species removal, to the appm;-.; late Council Advisory Boards to develop the details of the program. He _ )mmented that these ::-tening sessions have been very worthwhile. Councilor Jordan recalled that the second mapping of natural resources to expand the currently mapped areas began during her first year on Council. She commented that none of them dreamed that they would be here years later trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. She mentioned that a year and a half ago the Council was looking for flexibility, because there was more than one way to do something. She indicated that that, due to the Task Force and the citizen comments, they were finding other ways to accomplish the desired result in a less onerous way than under the current process. She observed that the current process probably impacted some people more than others in an unfair fashion. She expressed her hope that they could do the minimum changes to the Code in order to comply with the Metro Title 3 requirements just to get that piece done. Then the City would work further with the community to develop a community watershed/RC approach that enhanced the quality of life in Lake Oswego, included the flexibility recommended by the Task Force and the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB), and protected the environment in a fashion consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and community values. She noted that a watershed -based approach would help the Council with budgeting resources in the future. She gave an example of removing the ivy from street medians as part of protecting open spaces from ivy invasion. She discussed the need for education. She spoke of finding a definition of an RC tree grove that suited the watershed -based approach. She mentioned that the seven old growth trees in her front yard met the current definition of a tree grove (three or more trees). She expressed her concern at hearing people say that they did not want to plant a grove of trees that could restrict their use of their property in the future. She clarified that, whether one had a Sensitive Lands overlay or not, a property owner could remove a dangerous tree. She cited the concerns expressed by several citizens about not being able to remove hazardous trees as evidence of the need for more education. She agreed with developing some type of a special circumstance for looking at well-maintained and protected private properties, as this process was creating stress and anxiety for those who cared for the land. She commented that, in the future, they would want to make sure that the large pieces of undeveloped land developed correctly, if the owners wanted to develop them. She suggested taking a net environmental approach that recognized the economic and social benefits of development. She commented that there were places in Lake Oswego where their intent was to discover how to protect what was already established in a way that made sense for people to live. She said that it made sense to her to hold off on any new overlays until the City (working with the citizens) has figured out the best way to go about this. She argued that visually inspecting resources where significant public resource lands abutted private property was extremely important in a watershed -based approach for identifying resources to protect. She agreed with identifying small, significant tree groves with no visual connection to any other tree grove. She reiterated that defining what an RC tree grove and how it affected the entire watershed should help correct identifications. Councilor Hennagin mentioned hearing a common theme from the citizens: fear about the effect of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance on their properties without a full comprehension of the details in City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 July 10, 2010 the Sensitive Lands regulations. He recalled that he had known nothing about the Ordinance when he ran for office four years ago, and had had no plans respecting sensitive lands. He indicated that he had only learned about the Ordinance about a year and a half ago when staff told the Council that Lake Oswego had adopted an Ordinance with less restrictive buffers and riparian areas than Metro required, and that staff had substituted protection of upland tree groves. He commented that he has never understood what the scientific evidence was that supported the claim that upland tree groves played a role in protecting water resources. He pointed out that they all needed to be concerned about protecting their wa,-Jr resource, as this most important resource for humans was becoming less and less available wu,-ldwide. He spoke of his concern about whether Lake Oswego's original protection of upland tree groves was justifiable. He agreed that a comprehensive watershed -based approach was the most appropriate approach for protecting the water resource, although, at this stage, he was not certain how they would do that. He indicated that he did not understand now the Ordinance restricted the ability of property owners like the Zinsers, the Weibels, or Mr. Glass, to develop if they wanted to develop. He supported looking seriously at the flexibility recommended by the Task Force, including the two -track approach mentioned by Mayor Hoffman. He commented that the City needed to address Cap Hedges' proposal for developing his property in Glenmorrie, given that his proposal seemed to be more environmentally friendly than what the Code allowed. He questioned how the Council could adopt a regulation that affected all citizens equally, given that some lots had no water or tree resources on them. He asked for more explanation on how to address that issue and suggested that referring it to the Planning Commission for further investigation. Councilor Johnson expressed her concern about talking about the City's current program in isolation, and about having any program that did not have community buy -in. She observed that Lake Oswego had many resources (both natural resources and human resources). She commented that the City, in working towards a larger program that went beyond the sensitive lands overlays, could learn from those citizens who have been good stewards of their land for a long time. She spoke of pursuing a watershed -based approach that looked at the environment in terms of the whole community. She pointed out, with respect to Councilor Hennagin's issue of how this affected all citizens equally, that everyone contributed to the watershed because it rained everywhere and the runoff from all properties, whether they had trees or streams on them or not, went into the creeks protected under the overlays. She cited the example of a creek becoming shallower due to the sediment washing in from everyone else's properties. She emphasized the importance of taking a holistic look at the community as one environment and how they would share it. She questioned why some people could put whatever they wanted on their property and thus contribute to the sediment that hurt other people's property. She noted that the owners of the damaged property had to pay towards reconstructing the stream. She agreed that there was an inequity issue. She observed that this involved a much longer process. She suggested using education and a results oriented program with goals and measurements as two methods for garnering the currently lacking but necessary community buy -in. She contended that the Council could not expect buy -in of a program that was vague, unclear, and measureless. She agreed that the program needed to be incentive -based. She commented that protection should not mean `don't touch,' as people did live in their backyards. She advocated for the City taking an active role in making sure that people understood what it meant to have these resources and how to manage sensitive areas, as many property owners have already done. She agreed that the Council needed to look at the financing issues involved. She spoke to the City educating people with respect to what an acceptable plan would be, so that property owners did not have to spend money and time going back and forth before the City deemed their plan acceptable. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 July 10, 2010 She questioned why they would spend millions of dollars on projects in a watershed -based approach if they did not have clear goals and a way to measure success. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that a results -oriented program with goals and measures was vital. She added that a clear connection to protecting water quality was also necessary for buy -in. She noted that making a clear connection between what the City asked people to do in their backyards and the benefits to the environment was also important. She suggested asking this question at each of the steps: did this get the community closer to a program that would work? She observed that clearly the current program did not work. She mentioned asking rather questions at each step, such as did this get the City closer to community buy -in, and did it get the City closer to looking at the environment as a whole ecosystem and not as patches of sensitive lands. She suggested looking at sensitive lands as part of all their programs, such as the tree code. She discussed having a goal of building into the Code the maximum amount of flexibility possible while still protecting resources and achieving clear goals. She spoke of identifying what things were truly important to protect. She observed that unless people understood why having a picnic table in their backyard would be detrimental, the City would not achieve community buy -in. Councilor Olson commented that she was heartened to hear that her fellow Councilors have arrived at some of the conclusions that she came to a year and a half ago. She referenced the Mayor's comments regarding zoning. She pointed out that zoning affected everyone within the zone, but the Sensitive Lands Ordinance was different because it did not affect everyone the same way. She agreed with the Mayor that the citizens worked long and hard to put the community values into the Comprehensive Plan, although she doubted that their intent had been to develop such a restrictive code to implement those values and to go into people's backyards. She indicated that she agreed with most of Councilor Tierney's comments. She suggested using his outline as a jumping off point. She commented that she thought they needed to not limit themselves to reviewing the Task Force recommendations point by point but to look at the City policies and approach overall in deciding what they would regulate, how, and why. She agreed with looking at individual hardship cases, such as Cap Hedges, Carolyne Jones, the Zinsers, and the Weibels. She remarked that she did not know how they would do it, as it was resource intensive, but morally, she thought they needed to do it. She observed that she would like to go further than most of her fellow Councilors. She suggested an amnesty program for everyone designated in the first mapping to allow requests for reviews without fee. She mentioned that staff has already made field visits and removed designations. She discussed removing the requirement that the City record land use restrictions with the County. She noted that Metro did not require it, and the City required it only for tree groves, and not for water resources. She mentioned the stated purpose of providing notification to future buyers; however, since few properties have been delineated to the point of being recorded with the County, the requirement did not fulfill its purpose. She commented that there were ways to notify potential buyers when necessary, including educating the realtor community. She referenced a statement in Ms. Papaefthimiou's January 2009 memo, which suggested that the City could comply entirely with Metro's requirements with its existing Code and regulations. She asked that the Council look at using its current regulations to comply with Metro as opposed to offering upland tree groves as a tradeoff. She commented that the City Code, its Comprehensive Plan, and Metro's codes used the word `significant' a lot. She suggested that the City might have lost direction by not staying with the concept of `significant resources.' She mentioned another element that the City has lost sight of, the fact that Lake Oswego was a residential -platted urban municipality within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She pointed out that the State land use laws established the concept of an UGB to encourage development, infill, density, and urbanization within that boundary. She referenced Metro's statement that, after 2006, upland tree groves would be regulated as they were brought inside the UGB. She commented that City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18 July 10, 2010 the reason that did not make sense to the people was that telling people that they could not develop those areas conflicted with the idea of concentrating development inside the UGB Mayor Hoffman noted that the next Council meeting on this issue was scheduled for July 20. He asked the Council to think about scheduling an additional meeting, in case the July 20 meeting alone was not enough time. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 1:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder M: I City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 July 10, 2010