Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-07-20 PMCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 20, 2010 Mayor Jack D Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on July 20, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Council President Johnson, Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tiern y, and Jordan. Councilor Hennagin at 6:40. Staff Present: David Donaldson, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Ursula Euler, Finance Director; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Department Youth Council: None Mayor Hoffman corrected the Sensitive Lands resolution reference to 10-51 to 10-51A and stated that copies of Resolution 10-51 A were available in the hallway. 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Request to annex approximately 0.26 acres (located 18420 Donlee Way) - continue to August 3 (no written report) Action: Continue public hearing to August 3 4.1.2 Resignation of Paul Lyons from the Sustainability Advisory Board Action: Accept Resignation 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 10-47, updating sections IV and VII, 4 of the City's Financial Management Policies. Action: Adopt Resolution 10-47 4.2.2 Resolution 10-42, authorizing the City Manager to sign the five-year maintenance agreements with Northrop Grumman for hardware and software support of the City's public safety computer-aided dispatch system. Action: Adopt resolution 10-42 4.2.3 Resolution 10-44, approving appointments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Action: Adopt Resolution 10-44, appointing John Marandas and Nancy Gronowski to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and Jennifer Pierce Zahnister as alternative. 4.3 Minutes 4.3.1 March 9, 2010, regular meeting 4.3.2 June 29, 2010 special meeting 4.3.3 June 30, 2010, special m ting Action: Approve minutes as written City Council Regular Me ting Minutes Page 1 of 26 July 20, 2010 Mr. McIntyre stated there was a revised matter on the consent agenda regarding the Finance Policies which he had sent to Council yesterday via email, with a hard copy given tonight. The difference was that the language was tightened relative to the full faith and credit debt issues and how they might be used for utility debts as long as the debt was repaid by the utility fees. He respectfully requested the Council to adopt the revised language on the Financial Policy (Resolution 10-47) as Consent Agenda Item 4.2.1. Councilor Johnson moved 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] Mayor Hoffman welcomed John Marandas and Nancy Gronowski to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and thanked them for their volunteer efforts. END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT Mayor Hoffman stated that Citizen Comment would not be taken on Item 8.1. Azzree Lathan, 3017 Upper Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035 She stated she had attended a meeting that the City hosted for TriMet because she had not started her ridership on the TriMet lift. Now TriMet wanted to interview all riders and make a decision as to who could ride. She was informed that her ridership would expire in September, but she would have to submit the application now. She can ride a regular bus, but the loss of Bus 37 seriously impacted her, because she could no longer walk the long distance to get to Bus 78. She could no longer afford to take a cab and could not expect her neighbors to drive her to the bus stop. She requested that Council do whatever they did previously when working with TriMet, and she appealed to the other citizens of Lake Oswego and her friends to request the return of the Bus 37. She emphasized that Bus 37 was a great asset to her as a mature and active woman both in the community and at the national level, and she wanted to continue being active. Mayor Hoffman assured Ms. Latham that someone would be contacting her to obtain more information in order to submit her request to TriMet. Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court He stated his testimony did not concern sensitive lands, but the Metro Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Program and the potential non -regulatory program, options and tradeoffs. In response to the observation by Mayor Hoffman that his comments sounded like the natural resources and sensitive lands information he testified about last week, Mr. Buford explained his comments were in reference to the document he submitted in the current packet dated March 2004, which was a non -regulatory document. He requested that Council read the document carefully, intently and fully. He wanted Council to understand that in 2004, Metro thought a non -regulatory program might work. This was totally contrary to what City staff and other so-called experts selected by the City had told Council. As the non -regulatory program that was tried for a while had not ended in failure, he asked on what basis the claim was made that a non -regulatory program would not work. The only real basis for their evaluation of a non -regulatory program was that a non -regulatory program would be costlier to administer, and they wanted to spend the City tax payer money on other things such as the development of the Foothill's District, the West End Building and the streetcar to Lake Oswego. He referenced Metro Title 13, Nature and Neighborhoods 3.07.1310 and noted that the purpose of the program stated absolutely nothing about tree groves. Item A stated it would, "achieve its purpose through using a comprehensive approach that includes voluntary, incentive based and educational elements." Item 3 under 3.07.1330 stated, "Demonstrate that it has implemented a program based upon alternative approaches that will achieve protection..." City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 July 20, 2010 R.A. Fontes, 310 Second Street, Lake Oswego He wanted to ensure Council clearly understood that on his previous request for mitigation for the streetcar, he was not asking for any City money, only City leadership. It was not open ended. After a certain number of years, TriMet would not be obligated to continue operating the streetcar. He reiterated the Council's concerns discussed at the last meeting about the impact of the drop offs, congestion increase from park and rides and the loss of line 36 under either proposal. He had a concern with the enhanced bus concept, which was nothing but taking a regular bus and adding the worst features of the streetcar: adding the park and ride, eliminating most stops between Lake Oswego and Portland and moving the route to 10th Street and 11 `h Street away from the transit mall. It was possible to have better bus service. For the same cost as the no build, they could have an express overlay and/or an overlay regular bus that would take three minutes longer than a car, because only three stops would exist between Lake Oswego and Portland. People consider the timing of transit services from their front door to their destination, not the time between stops. From that aspect, busses would be better than the streetcar. He referenced a document he had previously submitted citing a city hall to city hall trip where busses were faster than the streetcar. When considering the reasons people do not use mass transit such as slowness, inconvenience or not reaching needed destinations, a streetcar would be the worst option. He hoped that Council would ask for a better bus. John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace He understood Resolution 10-47 had already been approved on Consent Agenda. His testimony concerned the language of the resolution and of the Finance Department policy. It was troubling that the language in the second "whereas" of the resolution discussed "intent" and was not as clear and specific as the actual policy language. The City needed to be very clear that payment should definitely come from utility payment revenues when full faith and credit bonds were issued. He also testified about this issue on the first issuance of the LOIS Bonds. He noted there had not been enough rate increases to make revenue bond holders comfortable about the City's ability to raise revenue through customer utility fees, and the City's bond ratings already had gone down. They needed to have a very good pro forma. He believed LOIS would possibly come in at $90 million, much less than the original amount envisioned. He wondered if the bond prospectus reflected this reduction in actual forecasted costs for LOIS. The revenue bond issuers might be comfortable now with this lower amount, and with the fact that there would be revenues from the bills to cover that debt service. He disliked full faith and credit. It was an attachment of their properties with regards to collateral for this time of bonding, and it did not require taxpayer approval as did general obligation bonds. He recommended that second thoughts be given about this mode of financing. He reiterated his concern about the ability and intent language. A need existed to be very sure that it was exclusively amortized or paid for by utility fees and not property taxes. 7. ORDINANCES 7.1 Ordinance 2557, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code relating to the Percent for Art Program David Powell, City Attorney reminded that in April, Council had a study session to discuss the current language of the Percent for Art Ordinance, specifically its ambiguity as to how the City should treat projects that involved the purchase of land. Appended to his report was the legal analysis done at that time regarding the ordinance construction which concluded that, consistent with his earlier informal opinion, the appropriate interpretation of the Percent for Art Program as drafted was that it did apply to the construction cost of qualifying City projects. It would not apply to the cost of acquiring the land itself but would apply to the cost of acquiring any improvements on that land if those improvements were to be used for a public purpose as opposed to being demolished for some other project. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 July 20, 2010 The Council had instructed him to return with Code changes to make the Code consistent with that interpretation. He emphasized that the Code amendment did not change the effect of the Code, but only made that intent clearer. Ordinance 2557 clarified that when a City project included the purchase of real property, the cost attributable to the land acquisition was not included in the total cost and that cost attributable to improvements on the real property acquired for a public use were included in total costs. The term "total costs" referred to those costs to which the 1.5% of Arts set aside would apply. Staff recommended that Council enact Ordinance 2557. Mr. Powell clarified for Councilor Olson that he did not view the ordinance as being applied retroactively, but this was always the effect. The West End Building (WEB) was the only acquisition he was aware of where an outstanding issue existed about whether there was application of Percent for Art proceeds to the acquisition of an improvement. Luscher Farm was not within the city limits and did not apply under the terms of the Ordinance. The Code explicitly stated that it only applied to properties or projects within the city limits. He noted only the changed Code sections were provided in the packets, not the entire Code section. Councilor Olson recounted Council's concerns about the chiller, carpet, painting, etc. in the recent CIP being capitalized rather than just routine maintenance and she had those same concerns here. Mr. Powell replied the definition of project was on Page 101 of the packet. The program was for "projects to purchase, reconstruct, rehabilitate or remodel or purchase for a public use any building, decorative commemorate structure etc." Monies would have to go for rehabilitation or remodeling of a building, structure or park, which would not read as buying or replacing equipment. Councilor Olson noted the language stated that it did not include minor alterations, ordinary repair and maintenance, but because they appeared in the CIP, there was concern that those might be considered capitalized costs. She wanted to ensure that the City was clear about that. Mr. Powell responded they could be capitalized costs but that was not the test for the Percent for Art, which regarded the rehabilitation or remodeling of the structure. Councilor Olson asked about the option of tearing the WEB down. Mr. Powell reminded that the opinion he gave to Council in April was that the WEB had now been used for some time for a public purpose and that applying the 1.5% Art set aside would be appropriate for the cost of the improvements at the time of purchase. He did not know if Council had formally accepted or acted upon that opinion, but it was still his opinion, even if the WEB were later torn down. He reminded that the WEB's purchase involved many unique circumstances. Mr. Powell clarified for Councilor Hennagin that under the proposed revised ordinance, the City would still require the 1.5% for Art if a new maintenance facility were built, essentially a garage and vehicle repair facility with some offices. The City project did not include street, pathway or utility construction, but utility construction in this context meant the utilities themselves, not buildings for which one had maintenance equipment and offices. Councilor Olson stated that the Art funding had always been applied to construction and that would not change. Councilor Hennagin understood but noted that some people might view a vehicle maintenance facility as an inappropriate place to hang public art. Councilor Jordan moved to enact Ordinance 2557. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' Olson opposed. [6-1] 8 REPORTS 8.1 Action on Second Look Task Force Recommendations (Council discussion and direction; public input on 6/29, 6/30 & 7/10) Mayor Hoffman explained that Resolution 10-51A was a revision of Resolution 10-51 which was in the packet. The significant difference was that the language from Page 115 of the packet was incorporated into the resolution. He reviewed the public hearing process and noted that copies of Resolution 10-51A were available in the hallway. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 July 20, 2010 Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Department Director presented the staff report via PowerPoint. She reviewed the improvements to the City's sensitive lands program and addressed Resolution 10-51A, which would embody the Council's decision as to the City's course of action on recommended improvements to the sensitive lands program. The recommendations were the result of the extensive review by the Second Look Task Force, who discovered the program was in need of essential changes to make the program rest better with the community and especially those citizens whose property it affected. Questions raised by citizens during comment sessions at Council meetings in recent weeks centered on concerns of fairness and City responsiveness. The Task Force discussed why the issues were so difficult to resolve on Page 2 of the Task Force Report, noting that natural resources were not evenly distributed in the city and that having a protection program was not a choice, but required by Metro's Title 3 and 13. The Task Force cited the City's expenditure of effort and dollars to address citizen concerns and review the program with an eye to making program improvements as evidence of the City's responsiveness. The challenge of addressing the fairness issue comes back to the Council. The resolution adopted by Council would constitute City Council's strong statement on the direction the City should move with its Natural Resources Protection Program. As presented, the resolution makes the program less rigid and more adaptable to the best practices and current science, moves the program toward a more reasonable measure where protection, fairness and consistency can be better achieved, retains the City's legal compliance, reaffirms the City's commitment to natural resource protection and better aligns the City's program with the science of environmental protection. The Staff report outlined a series of short-, medium-, and long-term steps to effectuate the Task Force recommendations. The first set of recommendations were the short term and immediate Code fixes that the Task Force and Staff believed would allow more reasonable uses of backyards, which was a key concern, while still positioning the City to meet Metro requirements for Title 3 and Title 13. These Code fixes were detailed in Sections A and B on Pages 2 to 4 and Pages 110 to 111 of the Staff report. She reviewed and briefly discussed the proposed recommendations as noted in Sections A through D. Ms. Frisbee concluded that tonight's vote would not be the end of this process. Much more work was still needed including Staff work, Planning Commission involvement and input from Council and the public at hearings. The resolution proposed tonight would be a significant marker that would permanently alter and improve the course of the City's natural resource protection. She noted that the City's Arborist and Natural Resources Planner were available for specific questions. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Jordan stated that the definition of a tree grove should include language about being three (3) acres or greater, which was discussed later in the document. Encouraging people to plant trees was important. She was concerned people had gotten the impression that planting five trees would result in a tree grove. Ms. Frisbee agreed, noting that several Councilors had expressed concerns about whether small isolated tree groves perform the environmental functions to make them worthy of support. She suggested amending the designation criteria to state, "Tree groves that will be identified and mapped and protected should be related to riparian or water resources and/or three (3) acres in size or greater." Connectivity with other tree groves was the other key criteria because the goal for resource protection was to provide connectivity from one resource to another. She confirmed that Staff would continue to work on the tree grove definition. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Jordan that the Task Force had discussed the issue of exempting invasive trees from tree removal permit requirements and acknowledged that invasive species like English Holly were discouraged, but on the other hand they were counted in a tree canopy, which sent a mixed message. After weighing the information, the Task Force decided they should clean up the invasive species plant list and not count those in connection with delineating a tree grove edge or identifying the boundary of an RC grove. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 July 20, 2010 Councilor Hennagin strongly supported Section A(1) to allow de minimus development or structures within RP Zones, but was concerned how de minimus was defined and about including vegetable gardens or flowerbeds in the de minimus definitions. Water was the most important natural resource needing protection, and the City had to protect against erosion. He was concerned about rototilling in riparian areas due to the risks of erosion. He questioned whether vegetable gardens and flowerbeds should be within the de minimus exceptions without some requirement for erosion protection. Ms. Frisbee confirmed the Planning Commission would address de minimus situations and noted that this was a constant issue raised by members of the community. Both Title 3 and 13 refer to de minimus without defining it; one allows non -building permit structures, and identifies a threshold for an allowed disturbance area. The Metro model code does not prohibit gardens or gardening activities. Staff envisioned this as an opportunity for the City to provide good information and communication, advising citizens of the best practices and methods for erosion control, such as hand digging as opposed to rototilling. The citizens want to be good stewards, and if they could get good advice about the appropriate ways to work in a resource area, the City could expect strong voluntary compliance. Outreach and communication was strongly and integrally linked to the relaxation of restrictions on uses in the resource areas for the very reasons that the Councilor was raising. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Jordan that sensitive lands were a part of the Comprehensive Plan Map. If a piece of property identified on the Sensitive Lands Map should be removed, property owners could move through with development, but they must submit a resource delineation application, which may be a designation that needs correction, not a delineation. However, she did not believe they could expand a deck, for example, until the Comprehensive Map amendment had taken place. Staff would need to explore how to address such issues. Councilor Jordan stated that it highlighted the complexity of the matter and that a lot more would need to be fleshed out. Councilor Jordan noted that isolated tree groves were often part of an open space in a subdivision. If platting the subdivision were part of the permitting process, it seemed such tree groves would already be protected. Ms. Frisbee replied that was a decision to be made; should the resource be protected by the City or by homeowners in connection with the homeowners' association (HOA) obligations? Homeowners often preferred having the City take the enforcement role, but that created enforcement issues for the City. Councilor Jordan stated that if it were required in order to plat and build the subdivision, then there was a certain amount of City responsibility, because the City required it first, before development. Ms. Frisbee added that those buying a property in a development with a restricted platted open space area that had also been designated as RC had a certain amount of confidence that it would be retained as a resource, and they would not have to resolve conflicting uses in an open space area. This issue would have to be addressed. The first step would be to determine how many smaller tree groves were (a) not associated with water, (b) not integral to connectivity and (c) addressed because they were in an open space tract or they were already in a development set aside. Councilor Tierney noted the language in Paragraph 2 on Page 111 of Section B(1) under Map Refinements and Corrections stated, "Staff anticipates providing routine map updates on an annual basis." He asked if newly identified resources could be added. There had been concern in the community about someone planting three trees and then having it designated as sensitive lands five years later. He wanted to avoid any misinterpretation and have an explanation clearly stated on the record. Ms. Frisbee explained that Staff realized the mapping did not reflect the edge of the resources; it was about designations, not delineations. These decisions were collaboratively reached between Staff and property owners, for the most part and followed a site visit by Staff, after an owner questioned the designation of a tree grove in their backyard. Staff agreed to correct the map on an annual basis. The issue about whether planting a tree would result in a tree grove was a separate issue. Staff was currently working from mapping conducted a long time ago and that dovetailed with the mapping Metro had done. Staff had no plans to add on resources in the future. Should another City Council decide to undertake such a big project, she assumed that City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 July 20, 2010 decision would be addressed then, but she believed the goal now was to protect what existed and encourage people to plant trees and be good stewards, but without the threat of having a designation fall on itself. Councilor Tierney asked if an appeals process existed to allow one to move forward if Staff did not concur with a contested map designation. Ms. Frisbee acknowledged that the current appeal process was inadequate. One could appeal at the time of designation, which was the Environmental Social and Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis that provided the opportunity to contest. One could also challenge the need to delineate when developing. However, no good appeal process existed in the Code for those wanting to remove the designation from a recently purchased property that already had delineated resources. Staff was examining how that could be worked into the Code, which was an expensive process now, because it required a very involved Comprehensive Plan amendment process. She related Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion to outline a process that would allow a property owner to challenge a designation by working it through the Planning Commission and Council, and if successful, refund their fee and address it as a routine map correction. Staff had confidence in the mapping that had been done and it was vetted very thoroughly by the prior Council and Planning Commission. The mapping had been refined somewhat over the last 10 or 12 years but not significantly and has been remarkably effective. Reexamining all the mapping was a big process, but she wanted to ensure that those property owners who were convinced they did not have a resource on their property had the opportunity to appeal to an appropriate review body at a reasonable price that would allow them to have a refund if they prevailed. This was the process Staff was considering. Staff envisioned that map correction process as Part 2 of Section B, making sure the resources were reflected accurately on the map and that the map update allowed for resource designation challenges or adding new properties. A sentence indicated that this process would also be an appropriate venue for landowners who disagreed with an existing sensitive lands designation to challenge its status. Councilor Tierney suggested that procedurally the resolution should reference this memo and the Second Look Task Force because so much more clarity was provided around the items in the memo and in the Second Look Task Force Report. It seemed that the resolution on its face missed that linkage. He understood the first page of Section A directed Staff to prepare the program provisions as outlined more thoroughly in the July Staff report but did not particularly like the wording. The Second Look Task Force Report should be referenced. Ms. Frisbee agreed that could be addressed and recommended asking Mr. Powell to assist in a forming a motion to approve the resolution that incorporated the reference to the Task Force recommendations and the specifics in the Staff report. Councilor Tierney reminded that a number of large landowners with multiple acres who had been good stewards of their land were now in the potential designation and had come before Council during the last year and a half. He believed most of Council concurred that their concerns needed to be addressed and asked if the two -track development review system met the particular needs of that group. Ms. Frisbee believed it did. She explained that the system involved a discretionary review and was intended by the Task Force to address some of the more difficult to develop lots where a more typical, straight forward development plan would not work. The Task Force did not specifically address the unique needs of large properties, but did address the unique needs of fully or mostly encumbered properties through the review process. Existing flexibilities in the Code needed to be better explained in order to be understood more clearly. For example, density transfers allowed a property owner to build to the same density allowed by the underlying zoning. In the case of tree groves, by protecting 50% of the tree grove and achieving the density level that the zoning allowed, development could occur in a fashion other than a grid, old-style development. Mayor Hoffman read from Section B(1), "Map updates would be the appropriate venue for landowners who disagree with existing sensitive lands designation." He understood one option for anyone challenging a sensitive lands designation on their property would be to go through a Comprehensive Plan amendment process, which has a price attached unless the Planning Commission and/or City Council decided to go in a different direction. City Council and the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 July 20, 2010 Planning Commission could agree that a challenge to a sensitive lands designation would not constitute a cost to a landowner. Ms. Frisbe added that if successful, they would be entitled to a reimbursement of the application fee. The challenge was that it would be a significant staff review process that involved a hearing and an appeal. It also required a resource expert to evaluate the significance of the resource. Staff was trying to figure out how to reduce the cost of that process for both the property owner and the City. Mayor Hoffman noted Section B(2) discussed reviewing the environmental function provided by small isolated upland tree groves. Staff offered two suggestions on Page 112, second paragraph from the top: one was to amend the Development Code rules, the other was to have a staff person go out and actually look on the ground; basically ground truth the sensitive lands. He confirmed with Ms. Frisbee that if Staff found that a tree grove with an RC designation was not an RC grove and should not be protected, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process would still be required. Mayor Hoffman asked if a process existed to allow or encourage people to replace an urban landscape, for example, removing a lawn, its irrigation and so forth, with native, non -irrigated plant understory and not be penalized years later should a neighbor report that they had a trampoline in wildlife habitat. Ms. Frisbee advised that the City was currently working with Metro's Title 3 and Title 13 requirements, and Staff believed the City was now in compliance with Metro maps. That did not invite the City to add more onto it. Staff believed the City was in compliance with Goal 5, so it was hard to envision what would motivate the City to add more when it was not part of the legal compliance obligations. Councilor Hennagin believed one of the most important recommendations from the Second Look Task Force was to improve the readability of the Sensitive Lands Code as noted in Section B(3). He had heard numerous people in three different hearings express a misunderstanding about what the current Code required. The Sensitive Lands Ordinance did not prohibit the use of one's back yard or one's ability to walk along creeks. The fears expressed by individuals stemmed from the Code not being clear enough for individuals to comprehend its effect on their property. Fears had been expressed both privately and publicly by owners of large parcels that the Sensitive Lands Ordinance would prohibit them from developing their property. From Ms. Frisbee's comments, the intent was to protect them and be able to create as many developable lots as the zoning allowed, just in some new creative way. He understood there was some assurance for large landowners that if they were to subdivide, the number of residences would not be substantially diminished because of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Ms. Frisbee said they would discuss the density transfer provision in the existing Code section after the break. She agreed it was not clearly explained for people to understand with confidence about what development could be done with larger land parcels, but noted there would have to be some reconfiguration of the site, and it would consist of smaller units which was a concern for property owners. The challenge was honoring the City's obligations with respect to community values for resource protection, its legal obligations regarding Title 3 and Title 13, and honoring the expectations of the citizens. It just did not all come together perfectly in every respect. Improving the readability of the Code in order to communicate with some clarity what the Code says about what could and could not be done on one's property would go a long way. Improving the Code would be discussed further next week during the Code audit; it was a much larger problem than just the Sensitive Lands Code. Councilor Hennagin agreed that the Code issues had been a primary concern of his while he had been on the Council. Noting the reference in Section B(2) to small, isolated tree groves and the Staff report reference to tree groves of three acres or less, he asked if some scientific correlation existed between habitat protection and three -acre tree groves; how was the three -acre dichotomy determined? Ms. Frisbee stated that the City Arborist and Resource Planner had been considering Code criteria with Staff for removing isolated tree groves. The most important characteristic was the isolated aspect; not being part of a connectivity of resource protection. They recognized the important role trees play with water in terms of temperature maintenance, uptake of storm water and the additional environmental functions that trees play with regards to riparian zones, so those City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 July 20, 2010 connected with riparian areas needed to be preserved. Staff was considering size. Tree groves were not limited to three acres, but that was proposed because they did not know how to fashion a good proposal until they could see what they had and how it was protected. That was why this was not short-term, but was something to come back to later when it had been fleshed out. Ms. Frisb e explained that in the initial review of the tree groves that were already mapped, three (3) acres was a natural break in the size of what they already had. Most tree groves were either significantly larger than three acres or quite a bit smaller. There was not anything special about three acres with regard to habitat. Councilor Olson believed the resolution was too big and lacked enough specifics. It did not achieve what the City Council had set out to accomplish. If the discussion was just limited to the resolution, she would have some questions, but she did not think it would get them to their goal. Without more direction and specifics to the Planning Commission, who had held public hearings and worked hard to bring recommendations to the Council, who were prone to reversing those decisions, the Council was just delaying the decision. She preferred having a more robust policy discussion, more specific direction and some very specific overreaching policies. For example, the de minimus impact discussion in Section A(1) should have a list of specifics such as fences, lights, tomato plants, rose gardens or whatever the Council determined to be de minimus. In Section B(2), the language stating, "Consider removing small isolated tree groves" should be better defined; why not state, "Remove small tree groves"? Where were the specifics about refunding the fee for a map challenge? She questioned why they were not being more specific. Ms. Frisbee replied that with regard to the short term Code fixes in Section A, the definitions and how they anticipate defining de minimus, Staff looked forward to aligning the allowed uses with what was permitted by the Metro model code in Title 3 and Title 13, which would include fences, decks, those structures that do not require building permits, or a disturbance area of under a certain threshold size. Staff wanted to give the Planning Commission a chance to identify the correct disturbance area after reviewing the Metro model codes. One city in the Metro area used a different threshold for disturbance areas. Staff wanted to look at those and then return to the Council promptly with definition amendments. She suggested if the Council had specifics they wanted staff to address, Staff could carry them to the Planning Commission and work them in. Councilor Olson reiterated that the resolution was limited and too vague and did not have enough specifics. She emphasized that more work needed to be done, though some might want the issue concluded. Councilor Jordan stated several Council members had commented about the status of the mapping of the 1 B properties, which was not really mentioned here. She assumed they were keeping all of that in limbo until they further identified what they meant. However, she had understood Ms. Frisbee felt very confident with the current maps, and so she was unsure where that left the newly proposed mapped sites considering where they were this evening. Ms. Frisbee believed the approach to the maps was embedded in the Staff report in terms of map corrections and map updates. She clarified Staff did not specifically refer to Section 1 B for any one reason, only in that they were discussing the map update. It was not a short-term item, they were not coming right back with that. The Task Force strongly recommended making program improvements before adding any properties to the inventory in order to address what types of limited development, uses and activities could take place in the resource area. Staff also addressed how they would communicate with the public because, as they had all mentioned, the fear and concern that existed was because members of the public were not clearly aware of what the Code allowed and did not allow. Ms. Frisbee explained the 1 B sites referenced an Oregon Administrative Rule and Step B is the identification of significant resources. As discussed, Staff used the HAS review and worked from Metro model maps in cases of the riparian areas. When the mapping occurred in 1997 and 1998 and that inventory was developed, many sites were not added and it was anticipated that the City would come back and add those 1 B sites later. While designated as 1 B sites, the property owners did not have the opportunity to contest the designation and have the ESEE analysis conducted on each property. The notice, appeal and opportunity to contest those 1 B sites must still take place and that was a big process, because the ESEE review was a big project. This was not going City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 July 20, 2010 anywhere at this point, and Staff would return with the program improvements and the short-term fixes discussed and then outline their recommendation for the Council as to how to proceed with the next round of designation. Council had asked that everything be put on hold with respect to that until Staff cleaned up the program, so they were still at that point. Councilor Jordan explained she wanted that clarified for those individuals who did not know. She asked how a large property not proposed for designation but with a lot of trees would be handled differently under the City's tree protections versus a natural resource situation if the property owner wanted to develop and plat the land. Ms. Frisbee explained that very different levels of protection exist. If a property had a mapped tree grove that was approved and included in the RC inventory, 50% of the tree grove would have to be preserved. The City's Tree Code had a one tree at a time permit, and a property owner was entitled to remove as many trees from an undeveloped piece of property as needed to obtain the footprint of the structure they were approved to build. If a 5 -acre property with trees on it were platted for a subdivision, each individual property had to obtain a Tree Removal Permit if trees had to be removed in order to place the structure. No other overarching protections existed otherwise; it was just handled through the Tree Code Permit. She confirmed that the only trees allowed to be removed were those that were a danger, were within the structure's footprint or necessary for a driveway, landscaping, etc. Councilor Tierney stated that he was a member of the Development Review Commission for many years, and they had never approved a straight subdivision. It was always a planned development and resource conservation was usually integrated with pieces of the property being deemed the responsibility of the homeowners to maintain, so there was that protection. Ms. Frisbee agreed, adding that an open space set aside requirement existed in connection with planned developments. Councilor Tierney asked if someone on the 1 B list had a property that had not been designated, would Staff interpret that there was a designation on that property. Ms. Frisbee explained that prior to the RC and RP designation process in the Sensitive Lands Code, the City had environmental protections in connection with its Goal 5 program stating that each property had to be reviewed on a property by property basis to see that its resources were being protected. Title 3 and Title 13 required the City to map and identify ahead of time, so property owners would have notice that they had to contend with resources. Prior to that, no mapping existed, so a property owner had to contend with resource protection in connection with the development process which was a different standard. Development Standards 3 and 4 applied only to riparian areas and not tree groves. She was unsure how many properties this affected. It was anticipated that once a property was identified and included on the inventory, the Sensitive Lands Code would address that property. They had been working it out on a property by property basis, but there had not been very many of them. Councilor Hennagin quoted Section D1, "Create and budget for programs for long-term maintenance of publically-owned sensitive lands." Obviously, the City would not have to worry about development on a natural space, but it certainly could have invasive species, which could take several life times to remove. He asked if Staff had discussed any rational and affordable method for the City to engage an endeavor of that magnitude. The City would need to participate if a holistic approach was desired. His neighborhood association had ivy pulling on Saturdays a couple of times a year but did not make much headway. Ms. Frisbee noted this long-term item would return to Council later, as it was not necessarily a Planning Staff driven initiative but would be engaged by the Parks and Recreation Department. Managing and removing invasive species in the parks carried a significant price tag. The City had been contracting over the last few years with the Bureau of Environmental Services. She believed the cost was about $5,000 per acre over a five year period; a sizeable price tag considering the volume of acres. She could not guess what the Parks Department would recommend as some appropriate alternatives to move forward, but this was a strongly held concern of the Task Force, and they wanted it included in their recommendations. This was the 'lead by example' approach and also a part of the long-term watershed approach, but she did not have the specifics for the costs. One setback for the Parks City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 July 20, 2010 Department was the loss of their AmeriCorps volunteer due to reduced federal funding. That volunteer had coordinated all those activities and made sure the City could provide some resources. Councilor Tierney asked why, if this was the first recommendation of the Second Look Task Force and they wanted to lead by example, it put into a category that was pushed so far into the future and not put before the Council in real time to be considered. The Parks Department reported that 400 of the City's 600+ acres probably had invasive species. That did not happen overnight and would continue unless the City took a stand to arrest and correct it. He understood it would take some money, but supplemental budgets were requested for a lot of other issues. He did not think the sensitive lands program was limited to the Planning Department. Ms. Frisbee explained that while it was in the longer term, larger scale initiatives that did not mean it should not be addressed for years to come. The Planning Department would not be the department to bring the recommendations for the Council, because the Planning Department manages land use permitting, not park lands. The Planning Staff had identified the Code fixes within their purview and upon which immediate steps could be taken in order to get back to the Council very promptly. Invasive species was a larger discussion that needed to take place with the Parks Department and Public Works. She agreed that it was a lead off recommendation by the Task Force, very important to them, very important to the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB). They also sent in comments stating this was a really critical piece to them. While she wholeheartedly supported removing invasive species, no easy fix was in sight because of budget implications. It was a challenging issue that Council would have to wrestle with, and good suggestions were needed for alternative approaches. Staff would convey to the Parks Department that this needed to be addressed sooner rather than later. Councilor Tierney suggested that could occur by modification of the resolution. Councilor Jordan cited discussions by previous Councils about not handling phosphate fertilizers in Lake Oswego and suggested the City could lead by example with regard to invasive species as well. She did not know if people could still buy ivy to use in their yards as ground covers, but that was another part of this overall stewardship of the community that they would have to examine when looking at Code. It was not a budgetary thing but simply stepping forward and saying that the City did not want ivy in Lake Oswego. Ms. Frisbee agreed, adding that would fall within the communications and outreach category. The City needed to expand its communication and outreach and provide better materials so citizens could take it upon themselves to follow good stewardship practices. Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Councilor Jordan that the Planning Department would bring the budget for the Development Code rewrite before the Council. The $5,000 per acre figure was for clearing; it would cost less to maintain it afterward. Councilor Olson emphasized that this was the City Council's policy on natural resource regulation. It was not up to the Maintenance Department to define it for the Council. It was the Council's responsibility to provide direction. She agreed that it should be moved to the top of the list. Having the Planning Department come to Council with a resolution about what could be done was backward. The Council needed to discuss the budget and Code rewrites, and all this was interrelated. Council should discuss Councilor Tierney's three-page outline which included phosphate use, as well as Councilor Moncrieff's response which was also good. She noted they had not discussed what they all talked about last Saturday and did not even have that information to refer to. Council needed to have that discussion, and she was concerned because she did not see that happening. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Tierney that only some of the 62 recommendations of the Second Look Task Force were included in the resolution, because the recommendations were not something that translated into next steps. The Staff report reflected what Staff believed the Planning Department could do in the immediate future to improve the Sensitive Lands Code. This process to review the program was initiated to address concerns about mapping, what regulations did to people's properties and how people would comply. The City, not the Planning Department, needed to develop an overarching Natural Resources Protection Program, which was a concern of City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 July 20, 2010 the Council as noted by Councilor Olson. She emphasized that this effort was to address the Sensitive Lands Code and immediate program improvements, and then identify medium and long- term commitments that the Planning Department would want and need to be part of, to ensure an effective resource protection program. The Task Force recommended knitting all of the City's resource and protection programs together, but that was beyond the scope of what Planning Staff set out to do. Staff was reflecting that; however, they were not attempting to effectuate it at this point. It was within the Council's purview to make that the top priority, the lead by example and a watershed -based approach, but Planning Staff could not achieve that with current staffing and still deliver on some of the immediate changes; that was how they separated it. Councilor Tierney believed some recommendations were within the Planning Department's purview. He questioned why the title of the resolution had been changed from the original resolution provided on Thursday, which was a rather appropriate title. Mr. Powell replied that he had suggested the new title to simply state what was done and to avoid having the Council disagree on whether or not the recommendations achieved all those value -laden statements, focusing rather on what was to be achieved by the language. If the Council preferred, the other title could always be reinserted. Councilor Tierney stated his concern was that they had spent a lot of time on sensitive lands, and now the discussion seemed to have narrowed to some of the Second Look Task Force recommendations. He did not believe that served him as a Councilor or the public well at this time. The Council needed to step back and try to approach it from the foundation policies. On Saturday, the entire Council spoke to what they wanted coming out of the activities to date. More than a year and a half had been spent on this, multiple meetings and so forth. More would be discussed during deliberations, but it seemed that many things annunciated at that meeting and concurred to by Councilors were not being acted upon, leaving it up in the air as to when the City would move forward. He believed they may be missing an opportunity. Mayor Hoffman agreed that could be discussed during deliberations along with the amendments to the proposed resolution. Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 10-51A, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council directing Staff to implement provisions to the City's Natural Resource Protection Program. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. The Council took a 10 -minute break, reconvening at approximately 8:24 p.m. Councilor Tierney moved to amend the main motion by replacing Section D2 of Resolution 10-51A with the following: 'By October 1, 2010, Staff is directed to prepare a current fiscal year and a longer-term, multiyear plan to improve maintenance of City property by removing invasive species and restoring those lands with appropriate species. Council recognizes that the degraded condition of our public lands occurred over many years and that it will take many years of dedicated sustained effort to correct the situation." Councilor Olson seconded the amended motion. Councilor Hennagin asked whether that should be addressed in connection with City Council's revision of both the Comprehensive Parks and Comprehensive City Plans. Councilor Tierney replied the Comprehensive Plan currently contained provisions to remove invasive species and restoration open space. His concern was that invasive species should not be in the community, on private or public properties. The City has not lead by example, but done the opposite; considering it, planning and putting it into Comprehensive Plans and Parks and Recreation Plans stated the obvious. The City should be removing it today, and not thinking about doing so tomorrow. Councilor Jordan moved to amend Councilor Tierney's motion to state, "By QGtobeF1 November 1, 2010..." Councilor Olson seconded the amendment. Councilor Jordan noted that the last sentence seemed different from the rest of the statement. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 July 20, 2010 Councilor Tierney accepted the amendment to his motion. He clarified the sentence was meant to convey that it took a long time to occur and it would be a long-term project, perhaps taking 5, 10, or 20 years to clear, but to get on it regularly and systematically. Councilor Jordan said she was trying to determine if that was the message they wanted to impart. Councilor Tierney believed that by keeping that wording, they would convey the message. Mayor Hoffman restated the amending motion. Councilor Hennagin asked whether that should be part of the budgeting process for the next fiscal year. He asked if any proposal for funding could be made in the current fiscal year. Councilor Tierney clarified he was leaving that for Staff to do. While he recognized the City did not appropriate certain dollars in the budget, perhaps they would have the same discussion regarding Section C, where Staff would return with a supplemental budget. He did not see how it would vary from others Council had seen in the past. Councilor Olson noted Councilor Tierney and she tried to get money in the budget for this, but the rest of the Council did not support it during the budget process. She also recommended changing the proposed language to state "to improve the maintenance of City PFGperty City natural areas and open spaces and parks" because she wanted the wording to be more specific. Councilor Tierney believed one area captured by his proposed wording was Southshore Fire Station which used invasive species decoratively, and he believed the resolution captured that. Mayor Hoffman called for a vote on the amending motion as seconded to replace Section D2 of Resolution 10-51A to state: "2. ensiye Lan ---s By November 1, 2010, Staff is directed to prepare a current fiscal year and a longer-term, multiyear plan to improve maintenance of City property by removing invasive species and restoring those lands with appropriate species. Council recognizes that the degraded condition of our public lands occurred over many years and that it will take many years of dedicated sustained effort to correct the situation." A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Moncrieff moved to amend the main motion, modifying Section B2 of Resolution 10-51A to read, "Consider removing small, isolated tree groves on private property, not including private dedicated open space from the overlay zone. Consid r increasing RP buffers only on public lands to the Metro model ordinance amount." The motion was seconded by Councilor Tierney. Councilor Moncrieff explained that the relationship was for the purpose of not having an overall decrease of protected land by increasing the RP buffers on public space. Councilor Hennagin believed the second sentence was a different consideration and should be placed under a new # 6. Ms. Frisbee agreed adding the amendment as Section B6 was fine; however, it should be a separate section altogether because Section B implemented the regulatory changes identified in Staff Report Section B, and expanding the buffer protection in public lands was not discussed in that section. Councilor Olson suggested removing the word "consider' and just saying "Remove small tree grove; Expand buffers..." Ms. Moncrieff preferred that language because she was not comfortable with unilaterally removing designated resources without first looking at the environmental function of that resource. She liked the wording on Page 112 of the Staff report, "Review the environmental functions provided by small isolated upland tree groves currently designated sensitive lands. Consider removing these City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 July 20, 2010 resources from the overlay zone" and "if the tree grove does not provide that habitat or water quality benefit, significantly greater than the benefits provided by scattered trees, in that case it is logical to remove it." And so, "consider" was there because if it were found that an isolated tree grove did provide significantly greater habitat or watershed benefits than the Tree Code, then she would support keeping that overlay designation. Councilor Johnson moved to amend the main motion by adding a new section to Resolution 10-51A entitled, "Section E: Implement Regulatory Changes Identified by Council" where Council could add amendments implementing a regulatory change, and placing the proposed sentence, "Consider increasing RP buffers only on public lands to the Metro model ordinance amount." as Section E1. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. Councilor Johnson believed the Council would have suggestions or amendments similar to Councilor Moncrieff's propose amendment, so adding the new section made more sense in terms of organization. Councilor Hennagin asked if specific language was needed regarding the consideration of the interconnectivity of the tree groves or if that was something that would be addressed automatically by the City. Ms. Frisbee explained that tree groves were an upland habitat protection measure, and to the extent that it was habitat, the goal was to have extended corridors of habitat, not isolated patches. It maximized the habitat protection value if you had a corridor or connected designated areas, which was why connectivity was a factor. Councilor Hennagin confirmed with Ms. Frisbee that retaining the word "isolated" in Section B2 solved his question. Mayor Hoffman restated Councilor Moncrieff's motion amending Section B2 to state: "Consider removing small, isolated tree groves on private property, not including private dedicated open space from the overlay zone. A voice vote was taken, and the amending motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye' and Councilor Olson voting `nay.' [6-1] Mayor Hoffman restated Councilor Johnson's amending motion, adding new Section E as noted with Section E1 of Resolution 10-51A to state: "Consider increasing RP buffers only on public property to Metro Model Code Standards." A voice vote was taken, and the amending motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] Mayor Hoffman called for further amendments to Resolution 10-51 A. Councilor Olson read some proposals she had distributed to Council before the meeting for the benefit of the audience and television viewers. The proposals included general comments as well as some specific recommendations. Councilor Tierney moved to amend the main motion of Resolution 10-51A, replacing the language in Section D1 to state, " , pFGgr,amandeffb. By February 1, 2011, Staff is directed to report to Council on the advantages and disadvantages, cost and funding mechanisms, and implementation plan to organize and operate internal resources to support watershed -based environmental management including linking surface water program and sensitive lands program". Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. Mayor Hoffman questioned whether that would get them any further along than Section D, which proposed scheduling study sessions on the new resource protection and environmental initiatives. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 July 20, 2010 He wondered if Council could get the same result by scheduling a study session in October/November or November/December. Councilor Tierney stated including a date specific emphasized the approach he believed was the consent of the Council. The date specific could vary, but it would not to go into "never-never land". Just adding a date to the language did not work. The proposed language was more specific, giving directions to Staff on what the Council anticipated coming back: what could be done to take positive steps to restore and rehabilitate Lake Oswego's streams and riparian areas. The date was included in part as a key component to satisfy Metro compliance, which was why he believed a date was important, preferably earlier rather than later. Mayor Hoffman summarized Council wanted to know what could be done and how much it would cost. Councilor Hennagin stated one of his concerns with the Sensitive Lands Ordinance draft was the exclusion of the lake and creek from the lake to the river. He could not see how they could talk about preservation of natural resources, protecting water and having clean water if the entire course of the water was not considered. He asked if watershed -based included the entire watershed including other bodies of water within Lake Oswego. Councilor Tierney answered yes. He believed partnerships would be the key element of any program, such as with the Lake Corporation and Lake Oswego Watershed Council. A watershed approach was used as a term of art; it needed to be recognized and used as a term of science. The lake would be part of the watershed; it did not necessarily mean bringing a sensitive land designation to it, although that was incorporated by the Second Look Task Force. He stated that perhaps that amendment could be made. Councilor Johnson stated she and Councilor Tierney would be supporting the amendment. She noted that the key issue was the connection between sensitive lands and surface water. Taking a watershed -based approach would affect the most people and get them to reach their goals; just having sensitive lands would not achieve some of the key measureable goals that keep being raised over and over again. Moving forward there might be better ways to protect some of these resources other than having a buffer around them. It was important to first create the plan and then get to a point where they could ascertain what could be moved and removed from sensitive lands and riparian lands if possible later on. She appreciated the direction that this was going. Mayor Hoffman restated the motion. The motion to replace the language in Section 131 of Resolution 10-51A as stated by Councilor Tierneyap ssed unanimously, with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Jordan believed it was important to recognize that during the whole Urban/Rural Reserves process there was an extensive look at all the natural resources in the areas being studied, and a lot of natural resource areas had been identified in Stafford and delineated or marked. She noted that this was something that was ongoing even outside the UGB. If Stafford was ever brought in at some future date that takes away some of what they were going through now because it has already been identified. Mr. Powell clarified for Councilor Jordan that with regard to #3 of Councilor Olson's specific actions, that the City accepts donations, sometimes as conservation easements or partial donations of value; however no formalized process or policy had been adopted. Councilor Jordan noted several things that Councilor Olson listed were covered in the resolution and the amendments made. She was comfortable that Council would move forward in a positive way to make sure those things were at least discussed in the future. Councilor Olson asked that the Council consider her 11 recommendations as amendments unless they had already been covered. Councilor Moncrieff had covered one of them. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 July 20, 2010 Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Councilor Olson that at this point Staff did not anticipate any further mapping. She clarified that the 1 B sites regarded those properties anticipated to be included on the inventory; they had been designated but had not gone through the ESEE and the contested hearing process. She acknowledged she had misspoken and that those properties were not mapped now. Councilor Olson stated that had been done 14 years ago and asked if there was a statute of limitations. Ms. Frisbee clarified that more mapping was anticipated. As discussed, the mapping was on hold until the program improvements were made but that was the only mapping anticipated. Councilor Johnson suggested that Councilor Olson's recommendations could be added as amendments to Section E. Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E2 to Resolution 10- 51A stating, "Remove tree grove designation on developed private property and institute a voluntary program." Councilor Tierney noted this was a big deal, and he believed they were not very good at crafting language at this time. He suggested using, "Consider removal of tree grove designations..." and then Council could set time for Staff to consider it and bring it back. Councilor Olson reiterated she would rather not change the wording, but he could propose that. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E2 to Resolution 10- 51A stating, "No further tree grove mapping within the UGB except on public property." Ms. Frisbee stated she wanted to be specific because she had caused confusion about mapping. She asked if Councilor Olson was including the 1 B sites that were proposed for mapping but were currently on hold. Councilor Olson explained she would rather not include them. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Olson that the 1 B sites include both tree groves and water resources. Councilor Olson responded that the language "No further tree grove mapping" would address those that were tree groves so the 1 B sites would be included. Councilor Hennagin verified that those that had been proposed would be removed. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Councilor Olson understood an amendment was not needed for Item #3 because Mr. Powell had informed that there was a way for citizens to donate property. Mr. Powell clarified that process was just ad hoc. Property donations did not happen much anymore but when more property transactions were going on, property owners might want a tax write off or to dedicate a conservation easement. He could not recall whether Cooks Butte was a donation because it predated him. Some federal acquisition money may have been involved in that. They were discussing a swap this past year, and he believed it may have been partially funded through some grant money, but he was not confident of the facts. Councilor Olson suggested creating a more formalized vehicle to easily allow people to donate their property, especially if it had natural resources on it. She stated she would not make that amendment. Councilor Olson noted her fourth recommendation was to maintain the tree grove designations that they currently had on public properties but also add designations on City -owned public property that does not have tree grove designations. Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Olson that to Staff's knowledge, no public land with significant resources had not been designated. Councilor Olson believed it would be good to check whether having more designations on public properties than on private property would help get the City to compliance; that was the intent of the recommendation. Councilor Johnson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E2 to Resolution 10-51A stating, "Review significant resources on City -owned public lands and add designations where appropriate." Councilor Olson seconded th motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 July 20, 2010 Mayor Hoffman clarified that it was only City -owned property, not school district property. Council r Olson noted "public property" had been used for months, but agreed that was a good point. Councilor Hennagin agreed that sounded good but asked what was to be accomplished with this amendment. He asked if there were any City -owned properties with resources that had not been mapped. Councilor Johnson responded that they would find out. Ms. Frisbee responded that to Staff's knowledge, no City -owned properties had significant tree grove resources. While there could be some outside the City limits, Staff was not proposing to undertake that project yet. Mayor Hoffman noted there was City -owned property east of Luscher Farm that was outside the city limits. He was not sure what benefit the amendment about designated resources would have outside the city limits because the City did not have jurisdiction outside the city limits. Councilor Tierney believed it would be a boundary designation outside the city limits. Mr. Powell clarified that the City did designate properties on the Comprehensive Plan Map outside the city on occasion. Relative to the earlier discussion, when properties were then annexed, the zone automatically applied. He believed the property had a designated resource with the stream corridor on it, but he was uncertain. Councilor Olson stated that was why the question was worth asking. Her intent was to aid in compliance. Councilor Tierney confirmed the amendment regarded significant resources, not just tree groves. Mayor Hoffman stated he had no problem with the amendment, but he was not looking at it as a way of complying with Title 13 or the Comprehensive Plan. The motion to amend the main motion by adding Section E2 as statedap ssed unanimously, with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E3 to Resolution 10- 51A to state, "The City shall provide a free review of all RP designations." Councilor Olson clarified for Councilor Tierney that the reviews would be free to any citizen who wanted their designation reviewed. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. Mayor Hoffman stated he would not support this motion because he believed it was covered by Staff in terms of the map update and related to Councilor Moncrieff's comments about looking at different mechanisms to make it easier for people to challenge their map designations. The amendment was too broad a brush and the financial consequences needed to be considered. There was discussion regarding the map correction. Ms. Frisbee clarified that Section 131 mentioned the free map correction process. She confirmed that Councilor Olson was correct in that the map correction process regarded what was identified before and was different than a RP designation. If the edges of the boundary really were not on that property then the map should be corrected. She noted Councilor Olson was proposing a challenge to the substantive designation of that property as a resource. She reminded that these properties went through in 1997 and 1998 and they all had the opportunity to challenge; that was how those properties ended up on the inventory. No appeal time was running in connection with those properties. She asked if Councilor Olson meant to revisit all the riparian areas in order to redesignate. Councilor Olson explained a fair number of people believed they did not have an opportunity to go through the appeal process and that they should have that opportunity now. Rightly or wrongly, that was the perception. Ms. Frisbee stated the issue from Staff's perspective would be how to handle demand. Councilor Olson replied she understood, but did not know how to help with that. Councilor Tierney stated the section on the maps and so forth was rather confusing and also involved the Comprehensive Plan, modifications and cost, and at one time Councilor Moncrieff had City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 July 20, 2010 suggested that the City would refund the money if the appellant was correct in an appeal. He agreed all those factors had value. Councilor Tierney moved for a friendly amendment to Councilor Olson's motion such that Section E3 would state, "Direct Staff to return to the Council for a study session outlining the appeal process as it exists today and options to be considered, including providing free review." Councilor Olson stated she agreed with Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion about refunding the fee upon successful appeal, but she did not know if that was incorporated in the resolution. She did not feel the resolution was that specific. She said she was trying to get to some more specifics. Councilor Tierney explained that he was providing that Staff would return to have a study session on a date specific to be determined. The appeal process was not clear, particularly for those people who had now become aware that their property was designated in the 1990s. This tees up the opportunity today to make some changes to bring some equity and fairness in without in the context of making suggestions. Councilor Olson asked if Councilor Tierney's friendly amendment would include a discussion of 1 B properties to get some clarity around that as well. Mayor Hoffman stated the problem was that they were not designated; they did not have the map amendment issue. Ms. Frisbee stated that 1 B properties would all have the opportunity to appeal individually. Right now they had been identified as potentially significant and would be given the opportunity to challenge that and also participate in the ESEE review process. Hearings would be scheduled for each of those properties. Mayor Hoffman stated that was different than the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. Therefore, he would not support Councilor Olson's amendment to provide free review of all designations, but supported Councilor Tierney's proposal to have a study session. He wanted discussion not only about the appeal process, but also the financial aspects. Could the City provide free appeals; how would the City provide free Comprehensive Plan amendments? Councilor Olson accepted the amendment to her motion. Councilor Olson move to amend the motion further by also including a discussion of 1 B properties during that study session. Councilor Olson stated she was uncertain 1 B properties fell under this topic, but she wanted some certainty about when Council would discuss what would be done with them and how they would get that resolved. Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that both items could be combined in one study session. Councilor Tierney confirmed that was acceptable. Councilor Tierney restated the amended motion, adding Section E3 as follows "Section E3. Staff is to return for work sessions with a full discussion of the appeal process as it exists today as well as recommendations for change emphasizing fairness and equity, and to provide a discussion of how the 1 B properties are proposed to be included in the inventory." Councilor Olson seconded. Ms. Frisbee clarified that 1 B properties were already potentially designated. Councilor Tierney confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that "fairness" included the discussion of fees, according to Councilor Moncrieff's proposal. Councilor Hennagin questioned whether Councilor Tierney was premature in adding the part about 1 B properties at this stage. With the proposed revisions to the ordinance, he would think that properties currently designated as 1 B would no longer be subject to a designation after it was amended. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 July 20, 2010 Councilor Tierney replied that he was agreeing with Councilor Olson's suggestion. He confirmed with M . Fri bee that the Staff report included a table that reviewed and provided some of the HAS scores of 1 B properties. He noted that some of the HAS scores were quite high, so some 1 B properties would be included, but they would only be discussing those that would be moving forward in this process. The confusion was that nothing had happened to these properties that were identified in 1997. He asked what would happen to these properties and over what period of time. He wanted to see if it made sense today. Ms. Frisbee interjected that those were the map updates the Council asked to put on hold last fall, so they had been sitting for a long time. The City did need to come back with how they were going to move forward with them. It would also be the right time to do the isolated tree grove analysis because that had not been considered with respect to the 1 B properties, so all of that could be addressed in one study session. Councilor Jordan stated that those with 1 B properties should be notified of the study sessions so they could understand the review and appeal process upfront; whether or not it would apply to them was uncertain. It would be interesting to see how many people who had designations already would be interested in appealing. It was one thing to figure out the cost on a one-on-one basis, but if 1,000 or 50 property owners appealed, there would be a big difference in cost. Ms. Frisbe agreed and added it would also matter whether the Staff would need to suggest a lid per year so it would be something they could handle; that was a big unknown at this stage. Councilor Olson ascertained that a date had not been scheduled, and suggested the study session take place in October. Mayor Hoffman advised being careful of both Staff's and the Council's time. Ms Frisbee believed Staff could schedule a study session on this issue before the end of December 2010. She indicated it was just a matter of staging out these various pieces, but a lot of what Council had asked was beyond Staff's current capacity or was not a Planning Staff function. She did not want to commit other departments or the City Manager at this point. However, she believed Staff could address the following issues and return to Council before the end of December: outline the existing appeal process and the suggestions for changing it, improving it or offering free challenges or reimbursable challenges; identify Staff's proposal for including 1 B resources on the inventory; and address any isolated tree groves that might exist among the currently designated, identified 1 B resource properties. Councilor Olson stated Councilor Tierney's original proposal was to have a study session on the mapping process and that appeal process specifically. She recommended not making the study session so big and suggested having two work sessions before the end of the year. The motion to add Section E3 to Resolution 10-51A as stated with the inclusion that the work sessions be held by December 31ap ssed unanimously, with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting 'aye.' [7-0] Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E4 to Resolution 10- 51A stating, "Do not record land use restrictions with Clackamas County. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. Councilor Olson explained the reason for her motion was because Metro did not require this and the City's current Code required it for tree groves only, but the City had been recording land use restrictions with the County for both tree groves and water resources. She would like the City not to do it at all. At a minimum the City needed to stop doing it for things that the Code did not require. Mayor Hoffman stated he would not support the motion for a number of reasons. First, the language was a land use restriction and placed specifically on a resource designation. More importantly, the map showed 75%-80% of the land resource designations were in connection with the development of bare lands, essentially subdivisions. The purpose of such a designation was to basically help the buyer of that land know what they were buying, not to penalize someone adding a bedroom or an additional structure onto their property. It was really a consumer protection provision in the Code. He indicated that the designations were on multi -lot projects. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 July 20, 2010 Councilor Olson asked why the City required citizens with already developed single-family residential lots to record a resource designation, a restriction with Clackamas County. There had been several that she was aware of. Ms. Frisbee explained the recording was required if a property owner had moved ahead with delineation of the resource to protect it and that happened when there was development, such as an addition on a house, etc. The Code was saying that a resource existed and needed to be protected, so the owner had to delineate and identify it and let future buyers know that they also would have the same obligation. The recording was with tree groves because 50% must be protected. The question was how future buyers were to know which 50% was set aside for protection; that was the rationale. She agreed the Code only required it for tree groves, and the Code did not require an informative period. Councilor Olson noted the City had been doing it for riparian. Ms. Frisbee replied this was based on the same rationale, but there were very few cases, and they were development driven. Councilor Jordan responded because they were development driven, the language needed to reflect both, because it was for development. The City needed to identify its practice with actual language that was clear. She believed in having the resource designation. One should have to delineate when a one -acre parcel with a resource is split into three properties. It was important for buyers to know what they were getting for both streams and tree groves. She would not support the motion but wanted to go the other direction and make sure that both were listed in the Code. Councilor Olson agreed it might be advisable to notify potential buyers about a water resource on undeveloped property. However, someone was recently told they should delineate the resource in their backyard, so they could put up their trampoline, and they almost recorded that delineation with the County for no reason for a developed backyard. Property owners were forced to delineate when adding a deck or putting in a garden, etc., and she did not think recording that with the County should be required. Ms. Frisbee explained that if someone filed a development application permit where development was taking place in a resource area, the City required that a notice of development restriction be recorded, which was not required in connection with riparian. She confirmed Councilor Olson was completely correct about the trampoline incident, which was a huge error by the well -intended enforcement officer. Delineation has not been required in any cases involving play structures, garden sheds or lawn furniture. She reiterated there has not been that many. Most involved trees and larger scale developments where the resources had been delineated to be protected. With the proposed changes the Council was considering to flex and ease the restrictions on uses in the resource areas, such as to allow de minimus or a threshold of disturbance area, she believed that problem really would go away. Councilor Moncrieff stated she did not support this amendment, because she also believed future property owners needed to know of any resources on their property. Councilor Olson replied if it was delineated and recorded, they got notice, but many properties with resources were not recorded, so no notice was provided, creating its own problems. People buy houses with no idea the property has sensitive lands, so the notice purpose was not fulfilled with this recording requirement. There was a broader issue of providing notice to all buyers whether they are recorded or delineated or not, and the Council needed to address that, too. Ms. Frisbee noted the process of developing online notice so the public could access it quickly without having to review zoning maps, etc. was addressed with one of the last recommendations. Councilor Olson emphasized that, in her opinion, ensuring that people received notice was not a good enough reason to record with the County. A voice vote was taken and the motion to add Section E4 as stated to Resolution 10-51A failed with Councilor Olson voting `aye' and Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `nay' [1-6] Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E4 to Resolution 10- 51A stating, "Create more classes of water bodies depending on their significance, habitat valu , intermitt nt v rsus p r nnial tc., and hav mor class s with diff r nt buff r requirements. Councilor Johnson s cond d th motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 July 20, 2010 Councilor J hnson made a friendly amendm nt to the motion that language address exploring the creation of classes. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Mayor Hoffman that creation of classes was covered in the model code, not Title 3, and so if that was the direction, it might be simpler to move to the model code that has varying numbers from 50 -ft to 200 -ft. Lake Oswego has the thinnest buffers, so if Staff started looking at classes, the buffers would not be smaller. The Task Force determined to retain the existing buffers, because the choice was to make them bigger which was not what the community expressed an interest in, so that was the challenge with opening this up. It was a large piece of work that would require re -identifying and re -inventorying all the RP and developing different classes. It might be appropriate for something long-term in the watershed approach, but it would take on a lot more of the tributaries than were currently mapped. She could not see how they would get there with smaller buffers than what currently existed. From the Staff implementation standpoint, she recommended the Metro model code. Councilor Jordan suggested that perhaps some things they believed might require smaller buffers would actually be better served in the definitions part under Section A, because it was clarifying what was actually a drainage or ditch, etc. Ms. Frisbee reminded that the Task Force found that the maps were substantially in compliance with Metro's maps for Title 3 Water Protections. They did not see a need to subtract properties, and there was discussion about the need to go further up the head waters and tributaries to add, but they backed off, understanding that Council wanted to develop a Code that could generate community support and have more flexibility. She did not believe changing the existing buffers would achieve having smaller buffers on anything. She cautioned the Council on that direction; this was a topic discussed by the Task Force who had a direct recommendation on that. Councilor Olson noted page 58 of the Council's notebook included the table from Metro's Title 3, which showed primary and secondary protected water features. The secondary protected water features with less than 25% slow only had 15 -ft buffers. It was hard to believe that Lake Oswego would not have any bodies of water that would qualify for something like that; what some people were fond of calling drainage ditches and streams. Councilor Tierney asked if the friendly amendment was "to consider the creation of more classes" or "to create more classes". He could support the amendment if it was to consider; then Council could have that discussion. While the Task Force had this discussion, the Council did not and did not have the same questions. There might be unintended consequences that the Council did not want. That discussion or information could be accomplished through a written document and not have to open up an awful lot if it was "to consider the creation of more classes". Councilor Olson noted Councilor Johnson had suggested "explore". Councilor Tierney agreed "explore" was fine as long as it was a work in progress. Again, it was an information piece. If the unintended consequences were true, it probably has a very short life, and if it was something different and it perhaps goes out, at least the Council could give it consideration as did the Second Look Task Force. Councilor Olson accepted the friendly amendment to add "explore" to the language. She believed it was worth exploring and agreed that just because the Second Look Task Force looked at it did not mean that the Council could not. She believed there could be a blending of the City Code with Metro's model code, which was what the Council needed to explore. Mayor Hoffman clarified for Councilor Hennagin that Staff was being directed to bring it back to the Council, not send it to the Planning Commission. Ms. Frisbee interjected that she believed Staff was sending its recommendations about existing classes of waters from the work of the Second Look Task Force. Council could send Staff in another direction, but the Council would have to be mindful that Staff just spent eight months in a process to review these things. She was concerned about how much to reopen. Councilor Olson clarified that the concern was that tiny, little intermittent ditches in people's backyards were called Class 1 Riparian areas, and that did not make sense. Perhaps it was not City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 July 20, 2010 the buffers that needed adjusting, but how they were being classified; something needed to change. She knew how the Task Force had looked at it, and she knew Ms. Frisbee's recommendation, but she believed it deserved further discussion. Ms. Frisbee read that according to the Division of State Lands, "jurisdictional ditches are ditches artificially created; ditches are not ditches if they have a free and open connection to waters of the State". She explained that ditches were created when someone carved out an area just to store water or let water run, but they were not connected to tributaries or drainage areas. They had not addressed all the riparian areas in the upper headlands of the tributaries in Lake Oswego largely because the Metro maps had not looked at them. This was a consideration the Task Force was interested in, because they thought more should be brought in if they were doing a true watershed approach, as the higher up in the watershed one goes the more important it is. Smaller intermittent streams were still water conveyances connected to waters of the State and were part of the drainage system. It was inconceivable to have narrower buffers and still protect those and be in compliance with the Metro model maps and Title 3. The challenge for Planning Staff was that the Council's suggestion regarded a remapping of the drainage areas and the streams and water courses, which was a really large-scale project. She wanted to understand what specifically Staff was being asked to do, because she had a pretty clear feeling it was outside of their capacity. Councilor Johnson read the amended motion adding Section E4 to Resolution 10-51A as follows: "Section E4. Consider exploring the creation of classes of water bodies depending on their significance, true value and intermittent versus perennial with varying buffer requirements." A voice vote was taken and the motion to amend Resolution 10-51A by adding Section E4 as stated failed with Councilors Olson, Johnson and Tierney voting `aye' and Mayor Hoffman, and Councilors, Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Jordan voting `nay.' [4-3]] Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion by adding Section E4 to Resolution 10- 51A, stating "Allow more uses in the buffers such as fences, gardens, lighting, pervious surfaces, etc". Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Councilor Olson stated this was a more specific version of the de minimus recommendation and reminded that it went back to her desire for the resolution to be a little more specific Councilor Johnson moved to make a friendly amendment to modify Section Al of Resolution 10-51A to state, "Modify the Development Code to permit de minimus impacts with specific attention given to allowing more uses in buffers such as fences, gardens, lighting and pervious surfaces". Councilor Johnson explained the intent was to provide more flexibility within the buffer zones and provide some direction to Planning Commission so they could make modification when there were things they wanted to achieve. Councilor Olson accepted the friendly amendment to her motion. Councilor Hennagin stated he was not in favor of the motion, because he believed the Planning Commission could determine and define what de minimus should mean, and the Council could act on it when it came back. A voice vote was taken and the motion to amend Section Al of Resolution 10-61Aap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye' and Councilor Hennagin voting `nay.' [6-1] Councilor Olson stated Councilor Moncrieff already addressed recommendation #9 about increasing buffers on public property if necessary for compliance. Councilor Moncrieff moved to amend the previously approved new Section E1 of R olution 10-51A to tat , "Con id r increasing th RP buff rs on alis City prop rty". Councilor Olson cond d th motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 July 20, 2010 A voice vote was tak n and the motion to amend Section E1 of Resolution 10-51Aap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, M ncrieff, Hennagin, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion, modifying Resolution 10-51A by adding "Work individually with "hardship" cases that are fully or substantially encumbered to create as much flexibility as possible." Councilor Olson explained that while Sections B4 and B5 related somewhat, her intent was to make sure the City made every possible effort to work with fully or substantially encumbered property owners. She was not sure the cited sections addressed the issue. For example, the Comprehensive Plan stated flexibility should be allowed such as cluster housing on significantly encumbered properties, and yet someone with that same request was denied. This was what she was trying to address. Mayor Hoffman informed the City did allow that; it was called density transfer. Ms. Frisbee noted it was in LOC Section 50.16.045. Councilor Tierney moved an alternative motion that Staff return to the City Council to discuss how the two -track review system would be applied and affect designated properties. Councilor Tierney explained that as Staff noted there were certain properties, such as those fully encumbered or larger than 3, 4 or 5 -acres, that a number of people had testified about, and the City has protected those over the years. Staff believed the two -track review system addressed what was needed. He suggested having Staff return to the Council to walk the Council through how that was accomplished by using one or two scenarios to explain how applying designations would get properties the value approximate to what it would have if it would have been developed in the past. It was also very important for those not within the city to see that protecting that resource did not diminish their property's value. A PGE CEO said "If you want to come into the Lake Oswego, you cut all your trees down." Having an individual of that stature saying that made it critically important that they address it and let people recognize there are means to do it. He emphasized he wanted to see it brought back, so the Council could see that this system clearly accomplishes that. This was the attitude that prevailed. People do remove the trees. While the City could keep these properties out, the trees would still be gone. Ms. Frisbee clarified that a proposal in the resolution provided that Staff return in the moderate term to discuss the two-tiered review processes. It was clarified that no motion was needed. Both motions died due to the lack of a second. Councilor Olson moved to amend the main motion, modifying Resolution 10-51A by adding, "Do not trade upland tree grove regulation for less water body and flood plain regulation." Councilor Olson explained the intent was not to come into Title 3 compliance by trading upland tree grove regulation for less water body and flood plain regulation. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Councilor Tierney moved to amend the main motion, modifying Resolution 10-51A by adding Section B6 stating, "Instruct Staff to return to City Council for discussion of habitat -friendly development codes." Councilor Tierney noted this was a Task Force recommendation that was not in the resolution. Ms. Frisbee responded that Staff was very interested in pursuing that. It was a big project and was not on their immediate task list, being backed up behind Sensitive Lands Program Improvements and a Code Audit. It was part of the recommendations, because Staff presented that to the Task Force in connection with how incentives might be addressed, etc. Staff was very anxious to do that City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 July 20, 2010 project, but Staff capacity was a factor. Habitat -friendly building codes would be the next big initiative that Staff looked forward to addressing. Councilor Tierney recalled the recommendation was to look at the code that Beaverton adopted which was very clear. He did not want to discount the work that Staff might do, but there might be some easier way to get to the same point. He suggested including the amendment under Section B, which would then be addressed within the next year. He clarified the intent was to return with a study session or information about developing habitat -friendly building codes, not necessarily to return with a code. Ms. Frisbee replied she honestly did not know if that would be achievable in a study session. Considering the directions for the Planning Department, the work plan would have to be reviewed. Staff was very interested in the green building approach and had many reasons they wanted that to come forward. Staff would try to get back to the Council with a roadmap for that within a year. Councilor Tierney appreciated that and the Councilors support, because in essence, Staff chose and gave priority to some things, and he was suggesting that the Council's priority was to include habitat -friendly codes. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. Councilor Olson suggested that habitat -friendly building codes could be wrapped up in the Code audit work. Ms. Frisbee replied that was a great observation, because the Code audit presentation included a discussion about adding sustainability and green building practices into the Code. She noted it was not proposed that Staff take on that role. She stated that even though Beaverton's code was nicely written, it was a bigger project than that, because just like watershed, the building code had to be linked with surface water management and planning, etc. It was not something Staff could spend 40 hours on and return with a really good idea about how to do it. A fair amount of research would need to be done, and Staff would probably want to assemble a task force and involve builders as well as sustainability experts. She liked Councilor Olson's idea about considering it in connection with the Code audit, because that would be part of the discussion next week. Councilor Hennagin understood Councilor Tierney was distinguishing habitat -friendly housing code from sustainable green building code, which links to the materials going into the house such as energy saving devices, so Council was talking about two different things that melded together. Councilor Tierney acknowledged that the two circles did overlap. Councilor Hennagin said he supported both concepts. In reading the Staff report, there seemed to be a need for an environmental division in the City that combined the City's water resources and water conservation with Mr. McCaleb, planners, sustainability staff and so forth. He sometimes got the impression that these people were working on separate islands and that not enough coordination existed. He wondered if adding an environmental division or department would help to resolve that. Councilor Jordan stated that she was going to suggest and support Councilor Olson's proposal to address the issue during the Code audit. Mayor Hoffman responded that it looked like both suggestions would achieve the same thing. A voice vote was taken and the motion to amend Resolution 10-51A by adding Section B6 as statedap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, Hennagin, Tierney and Jordan voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Johnson moved to amend the main motion by modifying Section C2 of Resolution 10-51A to state, "Develop a handbook on best practices for restoration; provide some on -the -ground support and grant opportunities." The motion was seconded by Councilor Olson Councilor Johnson confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that she was suggesting the City would fund these grants and it would have to be included in the budget. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 July 20, 2010 A voic vot was taken and the motionap ss d with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, Ti rney, Jordan voting `ay 'and Councilors H nnagin and Moncri ff voting `nay.' [5-2] Mayor Hoffman noted Section E which stated, "This resolution shall be effective immediately upon this adoption" was now renumbered to Section F. Councilor Tierney suggested that the Council see the resolution in writing and adopt it next Tuesday, because so many amendments had been made, and it would nice to make sure they read the way the Council intended. Councilor Olson asked if the resolution could be tentatively adopted this evening. Mr. Powell suggested the main motion be changed to reflect the Council's direction for Staff to prepare Resolution 10-5A with the approved amendments and return Tuesday for final adoption. Councilor Jordan amended the main motion to adopt Resolution 10-51A by directing Staff to return with a final version for adoption of Resolution 10-51A this next meeting on Tuesday, July 27 with the amendments approved by the Council this evening. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Powell asked whether the Council agreed with Councilor Tierney's suggestion early in the discussion that the sentence on Page 1 of the Resolution, following the "BE IT RESOLVED" statement, should read, "The City Council directs staff to prepare a following program revision (as outlined more thoroughly in the Staff Report dated July 15, 2010 and in the Second Look Task Force Report dated May 28, 2010." Mayor Hoffman clarified that all Councilors agreed with the change. Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Tierney that the original resolution title was preferable and asked if it could be changed back. Councilor Tierney confirmed that was his preference, but Mr. Powell explained during the break why the proposed was the correct title, and he concurred with the City Attorney. Mr. Powell confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that similar to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), the title was essentially inconsequential. He reiterated that his thinking was only that the Council had enough to debate about the meat of the resolution without debating whether they liked the sentiments in the title. Councilor Olson asked if, in the event this passed next Tuesday, the Council could have a sense of what specific things would be sent to the Planning Commission and when. Mr. McIntyre stated that Staff would return to the Council, hopefully on July 27, with a very rough draft of what they believed the work program would be. Staff wanted to ensure they were not misinterpreting the Council's direction. The draft work program would give the Council some clarity around how all this laid out over the course of the next 12 months. Councilor Hennagin advised he would not be able to attend next Tuesday's meeting. A voice vote on the main motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, Hennagin, Tierney and Jordan voting 'aye.' [7-0] 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and intergovernmental Committees. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manag r 10.1.1 Revi w of Council Sch dule City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 July 20, 2010 10.2 City Attorney 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman concluded there was no further discussions and adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Roby Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: offman, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 July 20, 2010