Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-07-27 Special141 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2009 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 12:11 p.m. on July 27, 2009, at the Oswego Heritage House, 398 10th Street. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Chip Larouche, Information Technology Manager; Jane Heisler, Communication Director, LOIS; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Joel Komarek, Project Director, LOIS; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Dan Duncan, Police Chief; Carol Bryck, Assistant Finance Director; Jerry Knippel, Maintenance Special Projects; Bob Galante, Redevelopment Director; Jordan Wheeler, Management Analyst; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Projects; Bill Baars, Library Director; Megan Ph Ian, Human Resources Director; Erika Rooney, Engineering Services Division Manager; Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Director; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Denise Frisbee, Planning & Building Director 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Mid -Year Council Goal Review Mayor Hoffman welcomed those present to the meeting. He recalled that this was his fifth City Council (1998 to 2004, 2008). He commented that this table had as much talent sitting around it as any table in which he has participated. He observed that the City Council goals changed from year to year and from Council to Council, yet they were all the means to the end of achieving the community's 20 -year vision. He acknowledged the need to balance individual short-term self-interest with the community long- term interest as a whole. He commented that the past Councils, and this Council, have always sought the higher ground of the community's interests. He recalled the challenges all Councils faced in terms of vocal minorities with passionate and focused self-interest bringing many issues to the Councils over the years. He pointed out that, in getting caught up with the issues, one could forget that Lake Oswego was a great city. He noted that Lake Oswego was number 17 out of the top 100 best places to live, and its 37,000 population had a median family income of $120,000 and a median home price of $500,000. He described the community as a jewel valued between $5 billion to $8 billion looking solely at fair market value. He stated that what drove him was the long-term vision and what was in the best interests of the community. Therefore, goals to him were important, especially in light of how a goal would affect what the community would be like in 20 years. Mr. Hertzberg observed that this Council took the goals seriously. However, that caused conflict in the budget process when the Budget Committee faced making a choice between keeping the goals as stated or changing them through the budget process. He spoke of following the goal update discussion with a discussion of how to set up the goal setting process to dovetail with the budget process. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 30 July 27, 2009 He concurred with Mayor Hoffman regarding the talent around the table. He mentioned the valuable balance of perspectives also. He reviewed the meeting management issues raised during his individual meetings beforehand with the Council members. He mentioned frustrations expressed that holding the Executive Sessions before the business meetings did not always allow sufficient time to do the work thoroughly. Other concerns raised included the meetings running too long, setting the agenda, preparing sufficiently for Council meetings, and guidelines for e-mail communications. He noted another concern expressed regarding whether the Council was operating at the most effective policy level, or if it was too abstract and philosophical in its discussions. He indicated that they would not discuss the budget process at this meeting because the Council already had a separate discussion scheduled on that topic. • Goals Update (pp. 3-21) Mr. McIntyre reported that no Council member asked him for further information beyond the written goals update staff provided last Thursday. He mentioned that the City was making good progress on the Council's ambitious goal list. He noted that, for several goals, staff had to wait on moving forward until after the budget adoption in order to know what the funding level would be for that goal. He indicated that staff should be able to accomplish almost all of the goals by December 31. • Communications and Public Engagement (p.3) Mr. McIntyre pointed out that, outside of some specific outreach requests, this goal was somewhat vague and philosophical. He reported that staff has been able to do many additional kinds of outreach, which he believed would prove successful. He noted the funding for a communications manager to help with public engagement and outreach efforts. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the communications manager would be fulltime and located in the City Manager's office. He clarified that this position would take on some of the tasks Jane Heisler had done before she moved over to the LOIS project; these had defaulted to Ms. Christie and Ms. Hirshberger, who did not have the time to handle them. This position would work more closely with the media and with the Council in identifying Council expectations. He spoke of staff's desire to get ahead of things and to be in a leadership role, as opposed to running around in response to events. He noted that this position would also take on some tasks done by Mr. Lashbrook. Mr. Wheeler indicated to the Mayor that the cost would be between $110,000 to $120,000. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the list of accomplishments did not include the Hello LO e - newsletter. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that this communications position would also handle the governmental lobbying tasks. Councilor Hennagin commented that he thought that staff has made a stronger effort to keep the public informed than he has seen previously. Councilor Tierney acknowledged the importance of the work done so far and the hiring of a communications manager. He asked what the component pieces were, what were they trying to achieve, and why did they need to do it. • Sustainability (pp.4-5) Mr. McIntyre commented that he saw the sustainability goal as more philosophically oriented than specific task -oriented, as it was a continuous improvement kind of process. He noted that staff has done a number of tasks related to their efforts and to community efforts, but this was really about trying to ingrain sustainability into the way they thought. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 30 July 27, 2009 He observed that Mr. Lashbrook, who had been a major proponent of sustainability on both the staff and the policy levels, would be missed. He indicated that staff was trying to get more comfortable in wearing the 'sustainability hat.' Councilor Tierney pointed out that the City had a good resource in the Sustainability Advisory Board. Mr. McIntyre acknowledged the paper received by Councilor Tierney and his neighbors, which had nothing on it but the signature line and the statement saying that sustainability had been considered in the project review. He reiterated that learning to think in terms of sustainability was an ongoing process. Councilor Jordan noted that the Sustainability Advisory Board has asked for types of monetary support that no other Board or Commission has asked for. She spoke to figuring out where the funding for public and staff education to ingrain sustainability as a mindset would come from. Mr. McIntyre reported that Mr. Donaldson attended last week's Sustainability Advisory Board meeting and came away concerned about their directionless effort. He indicated that Mr. Donaldson found that the Board had great ideas and was manned by well-meaning and passionate people. However, the City did not have sufficient resources to fund all their ideas. He spoke of Mr. Donaldson's concern that the Board might get too far out ahead of the Council, instead of the Council setting the agenda and the Board responding to the Council. He mentioned talking to the Mayor about working with the Board to set an agenda that the Council could feel comfortable with. Councilor Johnson commented that the Board was responsive to Council direction, but the Council has not given much direction. Mr. McIntyre suggested discussing this matter with the Sustainability Advisory Board during the upcoming Council meetings with the individual Boards and Commissions. He observed that, after the Council set it up, the Board hit the ground running, and now the members were exhausted. The current chair wanted to step down for personal reasons but no one wanted the position. Mayor Hoffman commented that it was his impression that the Sustainability Advisory Board was a group of talented people who have done many things as professionals at other cities. He held that the issue was that if the Council really embraced the concept of sustainability, then perhaps it needed to make some effort to catch up with the Sustainability Advisory Board. Councilor Olson pointed out that the Sustainability Advisory Board was not the Council's only Board nor was sustainability the Council's only goal. She spoke of maintaining a balance. Mayor Hoffman indicated that the Sustainability Advisory Board's perspective was that sustainability cut across every City Board & Commission in terms of building a sustainable community. He spoke of the importance of staff looking at things through a sustainability lens, including in the neighborhood planning process. He commented that they have not defined what a sustainable neighborhood was. He mentioned the concept of a 20 -minute neighborhood. Councilor Moncrieff commented that they needed to remember the budget issue when considering sustainability. She recalled that Palisades had submitted a sustainable neighborhood plan but the specific implementation steps were not financially realistic. She agreed that there needed to be a balance. Mr. Hertzberg noted that there was a larger discussion with respect to the Boards and Commissions regarding who was leading and who was following. He pointed out that the Council has received requests from other Boards and Commissions for Council direction. • Infrastructure (pp.5-6) Mr. Mclntyr commented that LOIS, the City's largest public works endeavor to date, felt like a comfortable project now, even though staff still faced a number of issues and challenges. He gave City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 30 July 27, 2009 credit for this impressive change in comfort level to the LOIS team. He reported that they were making good progress, although, given the complexity of the project, he was making no promises. He stated that whatever issues came up, staff would deal with them. He emphasized that this would be a successful project. He spoke of the success already achieved in that citizens no longer confronted the Council members at the supermarket about LOIS. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff has not heard much lately from the Alder Circle people. She observed that this testified to the work that staff has done over the past year to build trust in the community and to make information readily available. Councilor Olson asked for a sneak preview of the study session on the rehabilitation of the trunk sewer lines and the additional construction management budget from Brown & Caldwell. Mr. Komarek explained that one of the six phases of the LOIS project was the rehabilitation of the Main Canal, West Bay, and Lakewood Bay trunk lines. He explained that, although these lines were adequately sized and mechanically supported, they were also 40 plus years old. Rehabbing them would extend their lives out another 50 years. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Olson that Lake Oswego did not receive the federal funds that it had applied for with the Bryant Pump Station. He said that staff included the costs for the trunk lines rehab phase in the $110 million project. He noted that the Council has not yet sanctioned this project phase, which was the reason for the upcoming study session. He explained that Brown & Caldwell was concluding their design work and providing ongoing construction management services. However, Brown & Caldwell has reached a point in their budget where staff has initiated discussions for an additional amendment to their contract to pay for additional construction management services. • Water Supply (pp.6-7) Mr. McIntyre reported that staff was in the process of forming the Water Team. They have appointed a Deputy Project Director to run the project while Mr. Komarek was running the LOIS project; once LOIS was completed, Mr. Komarek would take over running the water project. He spoke of working through the maze of complications involved with this project, including the water rights issue. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hennagin that an update on the progress with the Water Board was a good Executive Session topic. Mr. Komarek indicated that the Board would not likely schedule a hearing until next year. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff has not yet hired a communications person for the Water Team, as they have been concentrating on the deputy director position and administrative/planning position. Ms. Heisler said that staff was setting up a website and working on a branding effort for the water project. Councilor Tierney mentioned that he and Councilor Johnson served on the task force with Tigard. He suggested including the communications from the task force in the Council Digest, as the project was quite complex. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would develop an update process for the water project similar to the LOIS updates. Mayor Hoffman asked for a study session in the fall devoted to the water project. Mr. Powell indicated that that would be soon enough for an attached Executive Session. Councilor Olson expressed her surprise upon receiving her water bill last week because the amount indicated that the new sewer and water rates that were supposed to go into effect on July 1 were actually applied to her entire bill (May 18 to July 17), even though her bill covered only two weeks in July. She mentioned that she has received some calls on this. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he has been dealing with this issue all morning. He reported that he met with the LOIS team directors and the City Attorney to discuss this quandary. He said that tomorrow night staff would bring an urgent clarification resolution to Council to address the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 30 July 27, 2009 difference between the billing cycles and the effective dates of the rate increases. He described the problem in detail, and explained that the City's billing system (as currently programmed) did not allow prorating. The staff recommended a solution of recalculating the bills and doing a pro -rated average. He pointed out that the City has never prorated rate increases before; staff has simply applied the rate increase to the billing cycle that covered July 1. Councilor Jordan expressed her disappointment that the tiered water rate process did not consider this problem. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that the City did not calculate the rates based on what they were at the time of water use, but rather at the time of bill calculation. He observed that that was an argument for going to a monthly billing cycle. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that he had not concurred with a rate increasing in May when its effective date was on July 1. • Infrastructure Master Plans (pp.7-9) Mr. McIntyre recalled the Council's agreement with Mr. Graham's recommendation to create infrastructure master plans as part of taking a more systemic approach to managing City assets and facilities. He explained that an issue now was getting these master plans aligned. He mentioned the Council's approval during the budget process for the wastewater master plan, and the City's failure to win a grant to do the transit master plan. He indicated that Mr. Graham was working on putting the plans in sequential order for updates and integration. He said that staff was also looking at reallocating resources so that they could focus on these master plans. He noted that doing these plans well and right, so that they were meaningful, was not cheap, and typically required a consultant. He indicated that these were moving forward slowly, although staff would move forward on the wastewater plan right away. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff was taking the Clean Streams Plan (part of the Surface Water Asset Management Plan (SWAMP)) out to the advisory boards for more thorough vetting before bringing it back to Council in the fall. He indicated to Councilor Olson that, even though the City did not get the grant, staff intended to put the transportation master plan in the budget for next year. He mentioned a staff idea for raising funds to pay for the plan: blend the plan cost into the street maintenance fee. • City Facilities (pp.9-10) West End Building Mr. McIntyre reported that he has re -negotiated the City's line of credit for the West End Building, per Council direction. He said that in September he would bring back to Council the question of authorizing the collaring or banding of the line of credit. He explained that this action ran contrary to the City's current financial policies, which did not allow investment in derivatives. However, there were some benefits to the City to do so, which he wanted to discuss with the Council. Councilor Olson asked several clarification questions regarding statements in the report. She referenced the statement that the Council adopted a strategy for retaining the West End Building for City purposes. She stated that it was not her understanding that the strategy spoke of keeping the building for City purposes. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would pull the file to verify the wording. Councilor Olson referenced the goal of developing a financing strategy to pay the debt service on the West End Building. She stated that she had understood that the strategy was to pay for the whole building, and not simply the debt service. Mr. McIntyre indicated that his recollection was that the Council wanted to fund the West End Building out of non -general fund sources. Councilor Olson concurred. Ms. Bryck clarified that the debt service referred to the principal and interest. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Tierney commented that he had thought that the idea was to get permanent financing to pay the principal and interest with no source determined. He speculated that people assumed that the City could not sustain the funding in the general fund. Facilities Mr. McIntyre recalled that the Council and staff looked at the West End Building as it related to the balance of the City facilities' needs. He mentioned that tomorrow night staff was bringing forward the public safety facilities' needs in order to get Council direction. Mr. Graham clarified to Councilor Jordan that the citywide steering committee referenced in the next steps referred to an internal Citywide asset management team with representatives from all departments. Councilor Olson observed that, while the Council identified public safety facilities as its number one priority in the City facilities strategy, it made the library as its top priority through the budget process and the funding allocated to the library. Since the funding did not follow the priorities in the facilities strategy, she suggested clarifying that the library was the Council's number one priority. Councilor Jordan argued that sectioning off the funds associated with the library was not setting the library as a higher priority than public safety facilities but rather simply earmarking the money for the library in the future. She commented that the City would likely have to bond in order to build the public safety facilities. She held that they were just using two different methods for financing the facilities. Councilor Olson commented that she has not been part of a discussion of a long-term financing strategy for the library. She spoke to the Council being clearer about its methods for accomplishing the goals. Mr. Hertzberg suggested discussing this issue during the budget discussion. • Comprehensive Plan (p. 11) Mr. McIntyre recalled the conscious decision made to slow down the initiation of the Comprehensive Plan update, especially in light of LCDC running out of money and not insisting on the City moving forward with periodic review. He spoke of the desire to buy a year in order to do the staff work needed to prepare for a visioning effort that would lay the foundation for the update. He indicated that staff anticipated initiating the Comprehensive Plan update towards the end of this year. Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Hennagin that LCDC was meeting this Friday to see evaluate its ability to give grants to do the periodic review work. Staff would know more once they knew whether the City would get a grant. Councilor Hennagin commented that he did not see the City making much progress on this goal. Ms. Frisbee concurred with Mayor Hoffman and Mr. McIntyre that staff was doing behind the scenes work in collecting data and receiving consultants' reports. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that this year staff would use the money budgeted for the studies associated with the update. He recalled that the Council had held different opinions on the appropriate level of visioning to undertake. Staff would bring the question back to Council for direction early next year. Mayor Hoffman mentioned his expectation of holding this discussion in the fall when the Council started talking about its 2010 goals. Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the City would proceed with the Comprehensive Plan update, even if DLCD did not require it. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was 16 years old, and was supposed to be updated every seven years. M . Frisb confirmed that updating the Plan was a three-year process. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 30 July 27, 2009 • Community Development Code Audit (p.12) Mr. McIntyre observed that the Matrix report had confirmed everyone's suspicion that the City needed to revisit the Community Development Code (CDC). He mentioned staff's work on finalizing an RFP to find a consultant to start the Code audit process. Ms. Frisbee indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff expected to hire a consultant in the next four to six weeks at a cost of about $40,000. Staff was reviewing the scope of work now for the RFP. She mentioned their expectation that the audit should not take more than six months. Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Olson that staff continued to use the Matrix report actively, particularly in the development review side of planning. She mentioned a key recommendation in the Matrix report of developing a work plan for the Planning Commission and the long-range planning staff. She said that, in Development Review, they were revising all of their materials and communication strategies used in working with the public in order to make them simpler, friendlier, and more understandable. She noted the revamping of the Planning counter area. She spoke of looking into software programs to help track the staff responses given at the counter. Staff would return to Council with that information, as the software had a price tag. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that one of his concerns was inconsistent feedback given to land use applicants. He indicated that there were programs available to record the staff responses given to an individual applicant on different days. Staff indicated to Councilor Olson that early next year they could provide Council with a report on the Matrix recommendations and what the City has or has not implemented. • Stafford Basin/UGB (p.12) Mr. McIntyre reported that this project was in progress at both the staff and the Council level. He recalled the Council's adoption of a set of aspirations dealing with Stafford. He indicated that staff was closely monitoring the Metro Council's intent to make a decision about moving the UGB by the end of this year. He said that staff would provide the Council with more information and get the Council more involved in the implications and consequences of certain actions by Metro as they related to the UGB and Stafford. Mayor Hoffman stated that the Council needed to have an intense discussion on both the Urban/Rural Reserves (as they related to Stafford) and the UGB because he was constantly being asked what his Council's position was on a variety of issues. He explained that once Metro determined the number of people moving into the region and the existing employment and residential capacities, it would decide how much it needed to expand the UGB. He noted that the Metro Council would not decide until the end of next year where it would expand the boundary. He informed the Council that he has argued, given the regional focus on centers and corridors within the UGB, that the region should not expend its infrastructure money on going out as opposed to staying in. He noted that Lake Oswego, given its emphasis on centers, was at the head of the line for regional money. He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that Metro would make a decision about urban reserves and rural reserves by April/May 2010, but Metro staff would finish the maps by the end of this year. He indicated that identifying urban and rural reserves was not the same thing as making the UGB decision. Councilor Jordan commented that the other important consideration respecting Lake Oswego for discussion at the study session was that the County was seeing Stafford as not really urban and not really rural. The County might be advancing a new category for it. Mayor Hoffman spoke of scheduling this discussion in August, because, in September, Metro would be looking at Lake Oswego to be a leader in the region because it was an edge city. He indicated that he would find a strong and informed Council very helpful. He mentioned that Lake Oswego was held up as a regional model because of its focus on centers, such as Foothills. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 30 July 27, 2009 He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the existing Council policy on Stafford was still valid. He agreed that the Council should ask the question of whether it should re -visit that policy. Mr. Powell noted that the preamble to Goal 14 in the City's Comprehensive Plan had a strong statement about expansion in Stafford. Councilor Olson commented that she thought that this discussion was overdue. She held that this Council has been passive about this issue compared to the rest of the region, citing the attendance of other cities' councilors at the Metro Tuesday night meetings, which the Lake Oswego Council members could not attend. She agreed that they needed to decide these issues, as Metro's decisions were imminent. Mayor Hoffman disagreed that the Lake Oswego Council has been any more or less passive than any other city. • Infill (p. 13) Mr. McIntyre reported that the Planning Commission was working on infill now, and planned to forward it to Council around the turn of the year. Councilor Hennagin asked how infill interrelated with the CDC audit. He wondered whether they should wait on infill until the audit was finished. Ms. Frisbee acknowledged that timing was a hard question. She explained that the code audit was a first look at the code in comparison to best practices or other examples of codes. She indicated that the process to streamline the CDC could take more than six months and would require extensive citizen involvement. Staff concluded that it did not make sense to hold up infill any longer, as it has already had a lengthy process. Councilor Tierney pointed out that the City had an existing infill ordinance; this current work was a modification of that ordinance. He observed that it might be a solution looking for a problem in today's environment, as the process has taken so long that events might have passed it by. He wondered whether infill would still be an issue facing the community once the Planning Commission completed its work on the issue. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he would like a study session on the general concept of what infill was, especially in light of the current economic circumstances, and what the community was trying to do. He pointed out that the Planning Commission was undertaking a highly technical analysis of the specific elements of the infill code. He spoke to taking a step back from that. Councilor Johnson commented that she did not think that the Council needed a special study session on the general ideas of infill. She indicated that she understood what the intent was, which the Council discussed at the beginning of the process. She argued that a better use of Council's time would be to review the report and talk about the pertinent facts in what the Planning Commission sent to the Council, rather than talking about the upper level stuff. Councilor Tierney wondered whether infill, given that the community has not been able to come to a conclusion in seven years, might be a governmental responsibility. He mentioned another possible conclusion that there was no consensus and that no action was the best action He spoke to making sure that they did not study sensitive lands so long that there was nothing left as sensitive lands any more. Councilor Johnson concurred with not studying things to death. Mr. Hertzberg posed the question, did the Council want to have a discussion on infill prior to getting the Planning Commission recommendation or wait until after it received the recommendation. Councilor Jordan pointed out that this was the Second Infill Task Force. She remarked that infill would keep coming back as an issue because that was the nature of this community. She held that they needed to address infill now. She agreed that when the Council appointed a task force to study an issue, it needed to consider the task force members and the Council expectations, and to set deadlines. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Moncri ff concurred with Councilor Johnson that she would prefer to wait for the recommendation and then move forward. She agreed with Councilor Jordan about being clear on Council direction when appointing a task force. Councilor Hennagin expressed concern about the Council overburdening itself with study sessions that might not be necessary. He indicated that he would not oppose receiving background information on the effect of infill on neighborhoods and how far the City should go in trying to control what infill looked like Ms. Frisbee referenced Councilor Tierney's comment about the Council needing to give direction to the Planning Commission. She commented that a study session could serve as a good check on the Planning Commission's progress on infill so far, and whether the Council needed to give additional direction. Councilor Johnson indicated that she could support a short, checkpoint study session. Councilor Olson summarized Councilor Johnson's points as the Council did not need basic informational classes on infill or sensitive lands, given that their issues related to management and implementation strategies. Mayor Hoffman expressed his concern that the Council needed more technical background in order to understand the technical and detailed recommendations that the Planning Commission would forward to the Council. He mentioned components such as, a tradeoff between lot coverage and floor area ratios, setback widths, etc. He noted another question of whether the City should have a residential design review process and how it would fit into the clear and objective standard. He clarified that he was not suggesting Infill 101. Mr. Hertzberg summarized the discussion as support for a check-in study session with the Planning Commission in September in order to verify that it was on the same page as the Council. Councilor Johnson concurred with holding that study session. She spoke of giving direction to the boards, commissions, and task forces regarding Council expectations and policy at the onset of a task so that a group did not do a lot of work and submit its report, only to find out that the Council preferred doing something else. Councilor Jordan commented that she saw the neighborhoods as part of the infill discussion because neighborhood plans dealt with the overlay issues. She agreed that it was important for the Council to discuss where infill was going. She cited an example of Lake Grove taking the language out of its plan regarding shrinking house sizes, etc., because the people voted down the overlay. Mayor Hoffman spoke in support of holding the check-in session, as he heard that the Planning Commission wanted to shrink house sizes, an action that had citywide implications. He commented that he thought a possible consequence of more regulations on infill was seeing less turnover in buildings and more emphasis on rentals. He agreed that these were good policy questions to discuss. • Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) (p. 14) Mr. McIntyre indicated that he had shelved this project due to lack of resources to move forward on it. However, the 50 Plus Advisory Board has expressed interest in taking it on. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that the Council has adopted a policy statement associated with SDUs, but the problem was that it was an infill issue. Councilor Johnson commented that she did not think that the Council had an actual policy on SDUs but rather the situation was how SDUs fit within the Code. She referenced her own experience as an SDU dweller in not having a full kitchen in her unit because installing one would have put them over on the square footage allowed. She indicated that she would like to see a Council policy on SDUs adopted before the end of her Council term. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Tierney commented that it made sense that the Council set policy and the Planning Commission wrote code to implement that policy. He noted that that might have occurred on infill but not with this Council, and therefore, they needed to revisit the issue, asking the question of whether these words in the Code followed policy. Mayor Hoffman recalled that the Metro Housing Rule required all cities to allow flag lots and SDUs. However, City staff ran into problems with SDUs, as Councilor Johnson mentioned. He described the tension that existed between the Council needing to decide whether to set a policy of encouraging SDUs and the objections of some citizens to SDUs on privacy grounds. He commented that, while the 50 plus Advisory Board report and the Affordable Housing Task Force report both encouraged SDUs as a housing choice for aging in place, the City's Code did not allow that. Consequently, SDUs became part of the complicated infill discussion. Councilor Johnson agreed that SDUs and infill were related, but pointed out that the Infill Task Force could not make a decision about SDUs. She asked to pull SDUs from the task force so that the Council could discuss it separately. Councilor Hennagin commented that he thought infill only involved partitioning a lot into two separate lots under two separate ownerships. He had not realized that it included SDUs and teardowns to build a new, larger house. Councilor Johnson explained that the question was how much lot coverage the Code allowed. Right now, the Code required counting an SDU as part of the lot coverage, even if it sat over a garage that was normally not included in the lot coverage amount. She spoke of making an exception and excluding an SDU over a garage from the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Egner indicated that staff would bring minor amendments for SDUs in the CDC updates coming from the Planning Commission after the Commission finished the infill work. He commented that the conflicts between the Infill Task Force proposal and the CDC updates resulted from how long the process has taken. He noted that they would need to resolve the conflicts. Councilor Olson reported that SDUs were a big topic at the 50 plus Advisory Board meeting she attended recently. She commented that the Board was willing to do a lot of work on the issue of housing and its impact on the community's aging population. She suggested using the Board as a resource in working on the SDUs issue. She mentioned that the Infill Report, which the Planning Commission started reviewing when she was still on the Commission, contained items that could adversely affect SDUs. Ms. Frisbee mentioned that staff offered the 50 plus Advisory Board a staff person to help them with their work in researching alternative housing options, including SDUs, to enable Lake Oswego citizens to age in the community. She indicated that they wanted to do a PowerPoint presentation, which staff offered to help them with, to take out to the neighborhoods for discussion. She described that dialog as appropriate in the community and informing how the Planning Department could move these issues forward to the Council. Councilor Johnson commented that, while she was fine with a community discussion, she would like to see something more specific come to the Council for action. She expressed her concern that the 50 plus process would bog down as the Board took the general housing issue out to the community. She spoke of proceeding with a simple Code update and a public hearing to move the issue along and to allow community discussion focused on SDUs specifically. Councilor Olson commented that the Board could parallel the alternate housing discussion with an SDU discussion. Mr. Hertzberg noted that, from a process standpoint, the Council would make sure that when it handed something to a group, that both the Council and the group knew exactly what the Council was handing over, so that the group did not go off in a different direction. He asked what the Council wanted to do with respect to SDUs. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Jordan suggested researching other city codes on SDU regulations. She commented that the biggest issue she saw was infill and how the neighborhood overlays started to play havoc with it. She asked which trumped the other. She wondered whether the Council wanted to encourage SDUs or smaller footprints, height limitations, etc. Mayor Hoffman spoke to bringing the issue to Council for a short discussion of the general concepts and the current Code regulations. He recalled that staff already prepared reports on this issue. Councilor Tierney observed that the Council did not have the resources to do everything in its goals, especially with the high degree of quality mentioned by Mr. McIntyre. Therefore, some items would fall by the wayside. He agreed on holding a policy discussion on SDUs but not a word discussion of what was in the existing Code. Councilor Moncrieff spoke to combining neighborhood planning, infill, and SDUs in the discussion of what Council's priorities were. She noted the potential for conflict between Council policy (and SDU code adopted as part of infill) and an adopted neighborhood plan that then became code. Mr. Hertzberg asked what direction did the Council want to give the 50 plus Board at this time. Councilor Jordan acknowledged that the Board was interested in the topic. She discussed her concern that their going out to the neighborhoods advocating for SDUs as a priority before the Council established a policy on SDUs could create another community uproar. Mr. McIntyre suggested that the Council set clear parameters respecting what it expected out of the 50 plus Board talking to the neighborhoods on behalf of the Council. He agreed that they did not want the Board saying things with which the Council did not agree or has not made a decision on yet. He pointed out that if the Board got too far ahead of the Council, the Council would only have to rein the Board in. Ms. Gilmer recalled that when the 50 plus Board started discussing this issue three years ago, they were only interested in finding a way to make it easier for people to get SDUs. They had wanted to work with Planning staff on research and a code audit respecting SDUs. They did not discuss going out to the neighborhoods. She indicated that that approach would be a benign way to involve the Board without involving the neighborhoods. Ms. Frisbee recalled that when staff last talked to the Board and offered help, the Board did not discuss recommending changes to SDUs. The conversation was more generic in looking at what other options other communities used to foster aging in place. She stated that staff did not authorize the group to talk about SDUs, initiate discussions, or recommend code changes. She indicated that the Planning Department still needed direction respecting SDUs. Councilor Hennagin wondered whether the Council should meet with its Boards and Commissions in order to better understand what each group did before setting parameters and giving direction. Mayor Hoffman mentioned the annual meeting in September, but noted Council discussions about meeting with the Boards and Commissions more regularly than once or twice a year. Councilor Olson confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the 50 plus Board wanted only to gather information and facts regarding the different kinds of housing used around the country to facilitate aging in place, and to see what the neighborhoods thought about that. Neighborhood Planning (p.14) Mr. McIntyre noted that staff was moving forward on the five neighborhood plans already in the hopper. He mentioned the Council's recognition of the Birdshill Neighborhood Association, and the report coming tomorrow night from the Neighborhood Planning Task Force, on which Councilor Tierney sat. Mr. H rtzb rg recessed the meeting at 2:05 p.m. for a break. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 30 July 27, 2009 Mr. Hertzberg reconvened the meeting at 2:20 p.m. • Goals Update continued • Sensitive Lands Mr. McIntyre thanked Mr. Wheeler for his work in writing up most of the updates. He noted that sensitive lands issue was fresh in the Council members' minds. He reviewed staff's understanding of Council's direction from the last meeting. Staff would delay the submission of the Metro report and proceed with forming the Second Look staff committee. He mentioned creating more public outreach and education on sensitive lands and natural resources. Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff did not intend to invite public comment as part of the Second Look Group's process, as it was a technical resource group. She said that the group would check in with the Council. She referenced the outreach plan that staff provided earlier to Council outlining many opportunities for outreach and community involvement in the next few months. Mr. McIntyre described the round table hosted by the Mayor and the Council on August 8 as the beginning of more conversation and dialog. Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Olson that staff has not asked Metro for a formal extension of the City's report because they understood that they had until the end of December to submit it. Ms. Frisbee concurred with Mayor Hoffman that the staff work should involve looking for additional flexibility in the Code while maintaining compliance with Metro regulations and consistency with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan's Goal 5. She reported that they were on their third draft for a framework for the Second Look Committee, which would involve 12 sessions with goals for each session. She observed that staff would struggle with project creep with this committee. Councilor Olson commented that, based upon her conversations with Metro staff, she did not believe that December 31 was a hard and fast deadline. She indicated that several other communities were looking to turn in their reports in March. She suggested that, before the Second Look Committee did a lot of work, that the Council have a policy discussion about what direction it wanted the Sensitive Lands codes to take and how much further it wanted to go beyond the Metro requirements. Mayor Hoffman spoke of the importance of having the policy discussion in the context of the Comprehensive Plan review coming up next year. He agreed that it was appropriate to discuss the value of natural resources and how to accomplish their protection. He indicated to Mr. Hertzberg that the Comprehensive Plan spoke in the broad terms of natural resources, as opposed to sensitive lands in particular. Councilor Olson commented that the policy discussion was about how the Council wanted to implement the Metro requirements in its Sensitive Lands Code. Councilor Johnson agreed with holding a policy discussion in September. Councilor Olson indicated to Ms. Frisbee that, while she felt comfortable with her understanding of the Metro requirements, she thought that the discussion at the Council level needed to include what Metro required and why, what the City required currently and why, how far beyond what Metro required the Council wanted to go, and how to accomplish it. Mayor Hoffman described the question as whether the Council wanted to revisit the 1995 City Council's decision to adopt the Sensitive Land Ordinance. Councilor Johnson agreed with Councilor Olson that she would like to hear where Metro and the City fell on the issues. She noted that the Council would not make any decisions at a study session. She commented that the Council might decide to revisit the ordinance and the tree code as a result of the discussion. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 30 July 27, 2009 Ms. Frisbe pointed out that the Second Look Committee would also look at Metro's baseline and where the City went further. She indicated that, while it would be helpful to hear Council's overall policy directive, the Committee would look at the specifics. Councilor Jordan pointed out that this community has chosen to define trees as an important asset. She noted that the Metro regulations did not necessarily protect trees. She described the Code as adding trees to Metro's requirements for streams and streambeds and thus creating a Lake Oswego version, which the City believed was in compliance with Metro. She commented that she did not know how to revisit the original Council decision with a simple policy discussion. Councilor Olson indicated that the discussion went beyond that. She recalled hearing at the Monday morning session that Ms. Papaefthimiou and staff developed this alternate method of complying. She commented that staff did not present this alternate method to Council as policy, nor did they present how they arrived at the decision. Councilor Jordan indicated that staff presented the method to previous Councils. Councilor Tierney commented that the existing Council needed to know the history, which, while Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Jordan might know it, he has never seen per se. He cited this as an example of the Council needing to deal with policy issues first and foremost. He recalled that the Council got into this discussion through the housekeeping amendments. He indicated that he has been rethinking the Council's action because he thought that they might have entered the discussion at a detail level instead of at a policy level. He spoke in support of having the discussion requested by Councilor Olson. He indicated to Mr. Hertzberg that the information he felt was necessary for the discussion included the history and the policy questions. Councilor Moncrieff said that the information she wanted was the criteria for the designation of property as sensitive lands, and a comparison of Lake Oswego's regulations to other jurisdictions. Councilor Hennagin commented that he had understood that the amendments to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, which the Council adopted, were housekeeping in nature. Councilor Olson argued that they were presented that way, but, in reality, there were several policy issues buried in there, issues that she tried to bring out. Councilor Hennagin asked for more information about how the tree ordinance and the Sensitive Lands Ordinance interacted together in affecting tree groves, and what their differences and similarities were. Councilor Johnson asked to see Ms. Frisbee's work on framing the discussion for the Second Look Committee in light of the Council's discussion about giving direction to a task force, not letting it go, and then trying to rein it back in later. She suggested seeing what policy issues came up during a general discussion and giving more time for community vetting. Councilor Olson commented that she thought what Councilor Hennagin was asking for was part of this alternate compliance method developed by staff. She agreed that they needed that explanation. She asked to see a simple, one page document listing what Titles 3 and 13 asked the City to do and what the City has and has not done to comply. Ms. Frisbee indicated that staff could provide the criteria that Ms. Papaefthimiou used for designations. She explained that what Title 3 asked the City to do and what the City did that went beyond that was exactly what the Second Look Committee would take six months to review section by section. Councilor Olson concurred that that was broader than what she wanted to see. Councilor Jordan commented that the Council needed to figure out what was policy level, what was administrative, and how far into the details it felt it needed to go to get to the policy. She mentioned that she had not viewed the wording changes in the Code as policy changes because those changes simply reflected the way that staff was doing business. She suggested gaining a better understanding of what policy was and how staff carried it out. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 30 July 27, 2009 Mr. Hertzberg suggested returning to the policy level question after they finished reviewing the goals. Mayor Hoffman asked for clarification on exactly what the Council wanted to do with respect to discussing natural resources protection. Councilor Olson recalled that, at the Monday morning meeting, she had stated that the issue was not whether they wanted to protect natural resources but rather how they protected natural resources and why. She reiterated that the Council has not discussed that. Mayor Hoffman commented that the policy level discussion had been the 1994 Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 discussion and the 1995 Sensitive Lands Ordinance discussion. He suggested reviewing the history of the original work and decisions made by the Council, from the beginning of natural resources protection in Lake Oswego in the mid-1970s, with a focus on the 1994 Goal 5 and the 1995 Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Councilor Tierney pointed out that Councilor Olson was also asking how the City protected natural resources, which involved policy questions. He mentioned that, while the housekeeping ordinance was portrayed as housekeeping, his review found some policy issues in it. He commented that, while the definitions of streams and fences might not rise to a high policy level, it was an issue that 80 people showed up on a Monday morning to hear answers about. Councilor Johnson agreed that they needed to have this discussion but not during the Council goal setting review. Councilor Tierney commented that the issue at goal setting was that this matter was not settled in this group. Ms. Frisbee asked, if the staff was going to provide answers to Council on the same questions that the Second Look Committee was going to look at, whether she needed to staff up the committee. She acknowledged that staff needed to provide the Council with better information because of the confusion on the issue of what Metro required and whether the City was over -regulating. She reiterated that a primary goal of the Second Look Committee was to go through every provision in the City's ordinance to evaluate whether Metro did or did not require it. If Metro did not require it, the question then became did the City want to include it anyway as a reflection of the community values. Councilor Johnson told Ms. Frisbee to stay the course. She reiterated that the Council needed to have this discussion, but held that even if there was some overlap between the Council discussion and the Second Look Committee's work, it was all valuable. Mr. Hertzberg noted that the Council seemed to agree. Mayor Hoffman commented that he did not anticipate discussing details such as the habitat assessment scores. Ms. Frisbee pointed out that the answers to Councilor Olson and Moncrieff's questions did involve the City's measurement system, as staff measured differently than Metro. She indicated that staff could provide those answers but with the understanding that the technical advisory task force would work through the issues in greater detail. • Economic Development (pp. 15-16) Mr. McIntyre mentioned that the Council set this goal partly on some suggestions he had made and partly in response to the economic times. He noted that Mr. Williams took the lead on this goal. He described the question behind the goal as how could the City create a strong and thriving community using economic development. He noted that the budget included authorization to hire an economic development manager to work on initiatives, including the Chamber's project to identify a baseline of where Lake Oswego was economically, and to consider what to preserve and what to attract to the community in order to enhance it. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 30 July 27, 2009 He mentioned that staff closed the recruitment for an economic development manager last Friday, which brought in some excellent candidates with good technical skills to help provide guidance to staff. Councilor Moncrieff commended the Planning Department, as she has heard only positive comments about doing business in Lake Oswego. She observed that it sounded like staff was following the Matrix report recommendations. Councilor Hennagin asked whether it was overly optimistic to expect a brand new hire to begin working immediately on an economic development plan for the City. Mr. McIntyre indicated his intent to hire someone with the skill set to start working on the plan immediately and in conjunction with the Chamber's project. Mr. McIntyre mentioned that staff has identified areas in the city that they thought would be good targets for economic development. He commented that it would be a mistake to ignore the southwestern industrial end of town that sat right next to 1-5. He pointed out that the Kruse Way corridor had great potential to be a stronger economic engine for the City. Continued public investment would make that area even more successful. • Lake Grove Village (p. 16) Mr. McIntyre noted that the Lake Grove Village work, in relation to economic development, was a joint effort by Mr. Williams and Ms. Frisbee. Mr. Graham reported that the consultants would finish the modeling and present a final report on Phase 1 by the beginning of September. Mr. McIntyre noted that Council funded the second phase, which staff would trigger upon completion of Phase 1. • Streetcar and Foothills (p. 17) Mr. McIntyre noted that these were two very intensive staff efforts that went hand in hand. He indicated that staff would continue to provide the Council with the background information it needed to make informed decisions. He reminded the Council that it approved the loan to TriMet to accelerate the EEIS process, which TriMet should finish in 2010. He mentioned that, two weeks ago, the Council sort of gave the nod to staff about negotiating with Williams Dame & White regarding a predevelopment agreement to move forward on the Foothills project. He noted that neither the streetcar nor Foothills were yet guaranteed projects. Mayor Hoffman reiterated his desire for a field trip to Foothills to look at the challenges and opportunities on site, especially regarding the right-of-way. He mentioned including Dunthorpe in the field trip, as well as looking at Williams Dame & White's work in the South Waterfront and the Pearl District. • Downtown Urban Renewal Mr. McIntyre indicated that Mr. Galante and Mr. Williams were working together on this. He recalled that the intent of the Council walking tour of the downtown two weeks ago was to gain an understanding of how the Board wanted to prioritize urban renewal efforts in the downtown. However, staff would like additional clarity, as the Board liked everything shown to it. He pointed out that the City did not have the resources to do everything that it wanted to do, particularly with respect to urban renewal. He spoke of spending the next rounds of tax increment wisely and investing them so that the results would beget more development. He recalled Mr. Galante's statement that the 1St and B project would create more development than other projects with less leverage in encouraging private development. Mr. Galante indicated that the Board appeared to agree on moving forward with the 1St & B project and the North anchor. Mayor Hoffman mentioned the formula discussed in the industry of leveraging $6 in private money for every $1 of public money invested. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 30 July 27, 2009 Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the next step would be staff bringing a proposal on the 1St and B project to LORA. He noted that staff was starting to provide the Council with information on 1St and B as a potential site for a future library and the implications of that. He recalled the Board's question of whether the library was really the kind of retail trigger needed at 1st and B to energize 1 st Street, or would a high-density development with major retail be a better choice. He commented that he thought that the Lake Oswego library was unique and would attract a great deal of foot traffic. He mentioned the perennial question of how to park the facility. He asked whether the Council was comfortable with staff looking at a library versus a mixed-use development on the site. He clarified that the question was where the Council wanted to invest the next round of funding. Mayor Hoffman spoke to the Council celebrating new stores and new successes more than it has been doing, which would also create momentum. Councilor Jordan mentioned using the Review, Hello LO, and the City's website to welcome businesses to the community. Councilor Moncrieff commented that the City needed to make sure that it did not miss business openings in other areas of the city. Councilor Tierney commented that, while he thought the policy issue of celebrating new businesses was great, the discussion was getting into the mechanics of how to do it. • Library District Mr. McIntyre noted the issue raised by Councilor Olson regarding the prioritization of the library facility over and above any other facility. He mentioned a second issue of whether the 1 st Street and B Avenue site would be an appropriate location for a library. He recalled that the discussion of the facilities study acknowledged the need for a larger library. He commented that the Council goal asked the question, if the library levy passed, what should the City do with the quasi -debt funds. He indicated that, through the budget process, the Council decided to look at those funds as off -setting general fund monies, and to reserve those general fund monies to build a capital fund for a future library. • Emergency Response Plan Mr. McIntyre recalled that, when he arrived, he found room for improvement in the City's emergency response preparations. He mentioned that Fire Chief Wilson spoke to him about giving a higher profile to emergency preparedness, and moving it out of the Fire Department and into the City Manager's Office. He indicated that he would create a new position in his office to do emergency planning. He pointed out that the winter storms proved that emergencies were not only the major catastrophes but also the lesser disruptions to people's daily lives. He commented that updating the City's emergency plan on how it responded to major events would take effort, but it was important. He explained that he was coupling emergency management strategies with risk management strategies (which also had room for improvement). He clarified that the position in his office would be a generic position assigned this task, rather than a Disaster Coordinator type position. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would fill the position by the end of the year with someone able to review the existing emergency plan and identify deficiencies. He estimated that it would take 12 to 18 months before staff could exercise the plan. Chief Wilson reported that he recommended to the Clackamas County Fire Defense Board that the County secure a grant to help all cities in the county update their emergency plans and standardize them with the County's recently updated plan (where it made sense to do so). He indicated that the County would likely receive the grant. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 30 July 27, 2009 Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the emergency response plan would probably acknowledge the fact that public safety employees did not live in the city. Mayor Hoffman recalled a conversation from over 10 years ago about whether the City should incentivize public safety employees to live within the jurisdiction. Mr. McIntyre commented that it was always a struggle between providing housing choices for public safety employees within the jurisdiction or simply acknowledging the fact it would take time for those employees to reach the city. He mentioned the idea of every household being prepared to be alone for 72 hours until emergency responders could arrive. He pointed out that the plan was about getting the City and the citizens prepared for an emergency, as well as deciding in advance what the priorities and chain of command would be. Councilor Olson asked for information on the risk management issues. Mr. McIntyre explained that the City's risk management program was spread throughout a variety of different departments. He wanted to centralize it with one person coordinating its various aspects. • Centennial Celebration Mr. McIntyre noted that tomorrow night Ms. Gilmer would be introducing the event coordinators retained by the City to make this event the memorable event of the century. • Iron Furnace Mr. McIntyre mentioned the tremendous work done by Jerry Knippel in leading the restoration of the iron furnace. He indicated that the project was moving along well with only a few wrinkles. He said that Mr. Knippel would be proud to take any Councilor on a tour of this monument. He recalled that riders in the Visionary's Bike Ride, in which he participated, stopped at the furnace for a break and found it very impressive. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that they could do some openings this fall and winter for the gardens, but he thought it would be cleaner to tie the opening of the furnace in with the Centennial celebration. Councilor Tierney asked if the furnace was the symbol of Lake Oswego. He mentioned the badges developed by the police department incorporating the iron furnace. • Intergovernmental Relations Mr. McIntyre reported that he included this task in with the communication manager's duties. He mentioned that he was about to retain a lobbyist firm in Washington, D.C., to work with the City on developing a legislative platform. He mentioned the streetcar and the water project as the type of project funded more readily by the federal government than less specific projects. He noted that Congressman Schrader was interested in helping Lake Oswego, and he thought it likely that the other congressional delegates would as well. He commented that he thought there were opportunities, but the City needed its voice to be heard, and heard more loudly. Councilor Tierney mentioned his concern that the federal government might not look too favorably on the needs of an affluent community in Oregon. He spoke of developing clear expectations of a reasonable time period to judge both the City's internal and external resources against. Mr. McIntyre commented that the lobbyist would advise the City on where to put its energies, given that Lake Oswego might not get certain things because it was an affluent community. Mr. Hertzberg asked if there was anything else that did not make the goal list but should have. He observed that most of the comments were clarifications, as opposed to real additions. However, if they have overloaded an already full plate, then they needed to figure out what to do about it. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Jordan commented that the Council got many things out of the way in the first six months. This list identified some things that needed further discussion. Mayor Hoffman asked if the Council wanted to hear the DKS Engineering presentation on Lake Grove Village separate from the community presentation scheduled for August 12. Mr. Hertzb rg noted that it did not appear so. Policy Level Mr. Hertzberg noted the question of what was the right policy 'thermostat' to know when the Council was at the right level or drilling down too far into the details. He mentioned a second question of what could the Council do in the next goal -setting cycle to make sure that the goal setting process and the budget process worked in tandem together. He spoke of considering the long-term perspective mentioned by Mayor Hoffman as well as what the Council wanted to do this year. He commented that he thought that everyone agreed that the Council should be addressing policy and not dealing with details. He asked how to tell the difference. Mayor Hoffman recounted an incident in which he got involved in the administrative details of the City's no nuisance policy while trying to help a citizen who had e-mailed him about the house next door to her being a nuisance because it was only half built. Councilor Jordan discussed a situation in which new Councilors, who were elected on a shift in policy, did not have the history behind the current policy in place and presently administered by staff. She commented that the Council probably would have to revisit the policies that the new group wanted to change. She described another scenario in which Council members discovered that the policies under which staff has been operating where not what they (either individually or as a group) thought were appropriate. She raised the question of how did new Council members, either individually or as a group, interpret the policies that have been in operation at the City for a long time. She asked how they determined how they could live with the policy or bring it up as an issue because it did not seem to be working correctly for the citizens right now. She cited the example of secondary dwelling units. The regulations worked fine for some but not for others. Did that mean that the Council needed to revisit the overall policy on SDUs because the principles have changed in the past 20 years? Councilor Hennagin commented that he thought SDUs were a good example of the difficulties in distinguishing between the policy level and getting into details. Councilor Johnson argued that the Council would inevitably get into the minutia discussions at public hearings because its job was to set law through Code, and the Code dealt with the minutia. She indicated that study sessions were where the Council discussed general policy questions. Councilor Jordan commented that she had a different interpretation. She held that the Council set the direction of saying that the community believed in encouraging various housing types, including age-appropriate housing. Then it was up to staff to draft the code language to implement that direction and take it through the Planning Commission and the public hearing process. If it came back to Council because the code language needed tweaking in order to meet the overall policy, then the Council members said something about it. Councilor Hennagin commented that he was more in agreement with Councilor Jordan, in that staff vetted the language at public meetings and public hearings and reported whether there was general public agreement with the provisions. Councilor Johnson disagreed. She stated that she was elected as a City Councilor not to just wait and let staff tell her what the public was thinking, but rather to make a decision based on what she thought should be in the Code. She compared it to the legislature making legislative decisions. She reiterated that if a Councilor wanted to propose something specific, then discussing specific Code language was fair game. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Johnson, although she thought that Councilor Jordan made some valid points. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the issue she has experienced at both the Planning Commission and the City Council was staff making policy and bringing it to Council couched in terms of 'these are housekeeping changes codifying current staff practice.' She argued that the Council never discussed those changes as policy. She referenced Councilor Jordan's comment on people voting for change in noting that both she and Councilor Moncrieff discussed the issues in the Planning Department, the problems with the City Code, and the issues with sensitive lands during their campaigns. She observed that she saw some strong feeling among the citizens and the voters that some change was needed. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought this was situation -dependent, and that it was the Council's job to interpret the Code. She referenced the hours of Council discussion regarding the interpretation of the two words 'due to' in the Code. She indicated that sometimes she agreed with staff's interpretation and sometimes she did not. Mayor Hoffman discussed the decisions made by any City Council in Oregon: quasi-judicial interpretations and legislative enactments of law. He commented that, in enacting law, the Council set policy, which sometimes involved decisions on specific items. He observed that distinguishing between policy detail and administrative detail with respect to land use and the Community Development Code was difficult because the Code was so technical. He commented that the policy dealt with what was more important, private property rights or neighbors' concerns. He reiterated that the Council needed to be well grounded in basic concepts surrounding policy decisions, such as infill and SDCs, because the Council did deal with Code revisions on specific issues. He argued that deciding that a revision was okay because the Planning Commission recommended it was shirking their responsibility as legislators and policy makers. He spoke of his realization that the job of Mayor and City Councilor has become incredibly more complicated in the last 10 years. He mentioned the extensive knowledge that the Council members needed to have on a variety of issues. He commented that he did not know what the answer was with respect to policy versus administrative detail because everything was so complicated and detail -dependent. Councilor Tierney described Mayor Hoffman's final point as indefinable, similar to sustainability. He concurred with Councilor Johnson that there was general policy but the devil was in the details. He referenced the fence issue in commenting that he had voted in favor of the fence because he had thought it was a housekeeping issue. However, the issues people raised with respect to that decision got him thinking. He agreed with Mayor Hoffman that the Council needed to be well- grounded. He advocated for the Council trying to deal with policy first, and then sum up the details second. He acknowledged that this was difficult, as it was only when a Council member felt sure about his/her knowledge that he/she then asked whether he/she was at the policy level, into the details of setting policy, or in the administrative arena, where the Council should not go. Mr. Hertzberg described the strategy he saw in Councilor Tierney's comment. The Council should start at the highest level that everyone agreed was policy, and work its way down a funnel to the line below which everyone agreed were the kind of details that the Council should not be discussing. Councilor Tierney mentioned the third component of the Council's job, the oversight of tasks it took on. He referenced the Matrix report as an example of something on which the Council should receive more information. Councilor Jordan recalled the first goal setting session she attended as a Councilor, at which she asked why the Council was not having the development code reviewed in light of the general knowledge that the Code was so convoluted that applicants found it difficult to get the same City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 30 July 27, 2009 answer twice from Planning staff. She commented that certain staff members were interpreting the City Code on a daily basis with their interpretations then becoming the law of the land. She noted that the City was now working on determining how to make the CDC work, which begged the question on other policy issues. She mentioned policy issues of how code language was written and inserted into the CDC as reflective of the community's desires, whether to revisit the Code as part of visioning and the Comprehensive Plan update, and whether to update the Code and then examine it section by section to determine whether it really described how the community wanted the city to grow. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she understood now the value of big picture visioning and understanding the CDC as a whole before delving into individual details. Mayor Hoffman referenced Councilor Olson's comment about staff making policy, which he agreed was a concern. Councilor Olson clarified that it occurred before Ms. Frisbee took charge and in reference to the sensitive land code amendments. She indicated that she did not know whether staff was making policy on other matters. Mr. Powell noted that staff made interpretations in the daily course of business when there were ambiguities or lack of clarity in the Code and they could not take the matter to the Planning Commission. He observed that a valid interpretation consistently applied tended to become City practice. He commented that he thought what happened at the Planning Commission was that staff brought forward all its interpretations and described them as housekeeping amendments needed to codify and clean up City practice. He concurred with Councilor Olson's point that the Council could have a different interpretation of the Code. Councilor Olson recounted what occurred at the Planning Commission last year. She said that staff brought a housekeeping ordinance to the Commission that included much more than what came to Council. In its review of the ordinance, the Commission found so many major policy issues that it spent months pulling them out of the housekeeping ordinance. She indicated that those policy issues, presented by staff as housekeeping, were still sitting over at the Planning Commission waiting for discussion. Councilor Moncrieff discussed the need identified in the Matrix report for the Council to provide direction to its staff and its advisory boards and commissions. She remarked that she could understand staff making its own interpretations and decisions in the absence of clear and understandable Council direction. She spoke to the Council striving to do a better job of providing clear direction. Mayor Hoffman indicated that his concern focused on whether staff was making policy today. He emphasized that if any Council member felt that staff was doing so, then he/she needed to inform Mr. McIntyre. Councilor Tierney mentioned Politics, Position, and Power by Harold Seidman, a textbook discussing that gray areas always existed in an organization dealing with legislation and implementation, and with a bureaucracy for the nuts and bolts. He held that it was up to the managers, like Mr. McIntyre, to identify when a staff interpretation led to something else and to stop the process. Mr. McIntyre concurred with Councilor Tierney. He commented that public administrators were trained to figure out how to keep interpretations at a high level. He cited his budget letter as an example, in which he attempted to keep the discussion at a high level by focusing on the big-ticket items. The discussion did not work out that way, but he tried to keep it there. He pointed out that the Council paid its staff a lot of money to do many things on its behalf. He commented that the Planning Commission lost confidence in staff because staff overstepped. He indicated that, as a result, staff was trying a new way of looking at the City's business. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 30 July 27, 2009 He mentioned that often the Council discussion went to a detail level to which he did not think it needed to go. He indicated that he would not stop the Council from going there because, at the end of the day, the Council would charge him and its highly trained, educated, and competent professional staff with implementing its decision. He mentioned his goal of providing quality written staff reports that provided the background information needed by the Council. He indicated that he reviewed each staff report with an eye to the Council, the public and the right thing to do from a technical point of view. He commented that he thought the Council paid staff to provide well -thought out policy recommendations and choices, yet in the end, the decision was the Council's. He observed that the line between policy and administration always got crossed. Usually the Council crossed it down to the administration level; rarely would he cross it going up to the Council level, and he would expect Council to catch that. He mentioned that Mayor Hoffman suggested to him last week that he assist him in managing the Council discussions by helping the Mayor get a sense of where the Council was in its discussion. Mr. Hertzberg asked how the Council felt about Mr. McIntyre taking a more active role in pointing out what he saw as an observer. Councilor Tierney indicated that he was comfortable with taking the risk, as the Council did not always recognize when it descended to the detail level. He suggested using a code by which Mr. McIntyre could signal quickly and efficiently that the Council discussion has gone down to the detail level. Councilor Jordan commented that she thought that Mr. McIntyre has stepped in before when he realized that the Council needed more information on a subject. She mentioned another issue of how to keep moving business forward on the Council's full agendas. She asked how the Council members could agree amongst themselves on what point they would agree to give something a try for a few months, even if they had reservations about it, and revisit it later to see how it was working. She noted that there was also an issue of trusting staff to give good information and do a good job on implementation. Councilor Hennagin expressed concern that Mr. McIntyre stepping in might give the impression that he was telling the Council what to do. He said that he had no problem with Mr. McIntyre saying that he would take something back to staff for reworking. Mr. Hertzberg commented that there was a difference between a Council discussion in which everyone essentially agreed but they were discussing the details instead of moving on, and a Council discussion in which someone disagreed and wanted more discussion. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that when he put an item on the agenda, he considered it ready for a Council decision. However, the Council might not be ready to make that decision, and wanted to go in a different direction, or it might see a need for additional staff work from its perspective. He pointed out that, with only a few exceptions, everyone was new here and still learning their roles. He commented that he saw a tendency for people, especially when on camera, to go to the discussion points where they felt most comfortable, such as the details that one understood best. He observed that the Council was expected to make decisions on issues that it took a professional staff sometimes years to work up. He concurred with Mayor Hoffman about the importance of staff providing the Council with a solid foundation on which to make good decisions. He pointed out that the Council was having to deal with major issues that were high profile, highly technical, and often had no good policy answer. He mentioned the Council's struggle with them, including the varying opinions on the Council, noting that the Council did come out of the other end still doing okay. He described the issue as how did the Council and staff move forward from those major issues, and face the second round of dicey issues coming forward. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 30 July 27, 2009 He concurred with Councilor Moncrieff that the Council's struggle being on camera meant that it was being transparent and not making backroom deals. • Goal Setting and Budget Process Mr. Hertzberg asked when the Council should do its next goal setting and how should it intersect with the budget process. Mayor Hoffman suggested holding an aspirations discussion in October/November in terms of short-term goals. Staff could note what the Council members' interests were and provide cost information for achieving those goals. He indicated that he also would like a parallel discussion of the Council's long-term 20 -year vision for the community. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that that process would not work with a new Council. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was focusing on this year. Mr. Hertzberg concurred that goal setting was difficult to do before Council members were sworn into office. He observed that this Council, with new people in four positions, instead of only one or two new people, had a difficult time sensing any continuity. Councilor Jordan pointed out that if they went with the Mayor's suggestion, and gave staff time to put some dollar figures on the goals, then the Council could come back to the official goal setting in January and identify which items should have top priority. She spoke to being careful about identifying specific projects for immediate implementation (such as pathways), especially in light of the systems plans updates underway. She expressed concern about picking out projects without knowing how those projects fit into the grander scheme of things. Mr. McIntyre asked how an October/November pre -goal setting session differed from a January goal -setting session. Mayor Hoffman clarified that the October/November session would allow the Council to identify specific goals for consideration, to which staff could then attach cost figures for the January discussion. Councilor Olson recalled the Council discussion following the budget process this year that the managers set their budgets in December. She pointed out that the managers being able to tell the Council in January whether a given goal was unrealistic because of the cost in staff resources and money could help the Council in choosing which goals to pursue. Mr. Hertzberg described it as doing a reality test on the goals outside of the budget process. Councilor Tierney observed that the dollar amounts and FTEs needed to implement the goals were abstract in January. He commented that some of the goals were items that the Council wanted to put effort into and others were ongoing projects that the Council wanted staff to keep it informed on, such as the LOIS project. He mentioned that the Council's experience this year relative to resources meant that the group was better prepared to look at the budget. Mr. McIntyre concurred that staff would have moved forward on some of the goals, no matter what, such as adopt a budget or finish the furnace. He suggested that the Council be clearer in October/November about what it meant by a goal. • City Council Visioning Mayor Hoffman suggested looking at the City's visioning statement in November. Mr. Hertzberg distributed the Council vision, which included the basic purposes of City government and identified what the Council was working on that it wanted to see in the next 20 years. He commented that he did not remember which Council first developed this, but he knew that later Councils did revisit it to make sure that they were still on the same track. He indicated that the Council could start with this or start with a blank sheet. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that much of this vision was what he inherited in 1999. He pointed out its value in helping to ground the Council in its basic duties. Mr. H rtzb rg recessed the meeting at 4:10 p.m. for a break. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 30 July 27, 2009 Mr. Hertzberg reconvened the meeting at 4:20 p.m. • Meeting Management Mr. Hertzberg reviewed the questions raised during his individual sessions with Council members. These included holding the Executive Session before the business meetings, the meetings running too late, setting future agendas, and underpreparing for Council meetings. He observed that preparing for Council meetings raised the question of the Tuesday morning agenda review meetings, and how much the Council could do via e-mail. He indicated that several Council members expressed concern that holding the Executive Session meetings before the scheduled business meeting did not allow sufficient time to discuss the issues adequately. The Council discussed when to hold the Executive Session. Suggestions included delaying the start of the regular meeting if the Council only needed an additional 15 minutes longer, starting the regular meeting on time and holding the Executive Session either after the regular meeting or far enough in advance of the regular meeting to allow sufficient time for adequate discussion, and holding the Executive Session on a different day. Staff indicated that it was extremely difficult to predict how long any given agenda item would take. Mayor Hoffman noted that there were two different kinds of Executive Sessions: informational and decision-making. He said that he placed the responsibility on Mr. Powell, Mr. McIntyre, and himself to evaluate how much time an Executive Session topic would take, and to start the meeting early enough to accommodate the amount of discussion time likely needed. He noted that Mr. Powell's confidential memos often explained a complicated, legal issue sufficiently for him. He pointed out that the Council making a decision on a complicated issue when the members were tired after a long meeting was not the best practice. He acknowledged the other possibilities of a Monday evening, a Tuesday morning meeting, or after the Tuesday meeting. The Council discussed holding an agenda review meeting, preparing for the evening meeting, and meeting length. Mr. Hertzberg recalled the previous Council discussion that the agenda review meetings did help the Council prepare for the evening meeting, but they were supposed to reserve the discussion for the evening meeting. Councilor Jordan commented that the Tuesday morning meeting was good if the Council only reviewed the agenda, pulled items from the Consent Agenda, and asked for further information from staff. She recalled that the problem had been that the Council would end up discussing things or holding a study session during the meeting. She observed that it was difficult to dictate to elected officials when to stop talking and move on. Mayor Hoffman suggested trying the morning meetings in September and October just to see if they helped facilitate the evening meetings. If they did not, then the Council could stop them. Councilor Jordan commented that e-mail played into meeting preparation as well. She indicated that she was more likely to ask a question at the meeting than to ask it through e-mail. She speculated that staff most likely had the answer but simply did not include it in the report. Councilor Tierney pointed out that, what with community presentations at the beginning of the meeting, the Council often did not actually start the business portion until 7:30 p.m. or later. Councilor Olson commented that, as a citizen attending the Tuesday morning meetings for a year, she had been concerned at the frequent substantive discussions of issues at those meetings. She agreed that if they went back to the original agenda review purpose of the meeting, that would work well. It would also provide an opportunity to hold Executive Sessions. Mr. McIntyre recalled that he had disagreed with former Mayor Hammerstad about holding the Tuesday morning meeting (a meeting type that he had never experienced before with a City Council) because, while it was efficient, it was not transparent on the Council's part to be doing so much of its work in the morning. He pointed out that the actual amount of meeting time of longer City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 30 July 27, 2009 meetings and no agenda review meeting compared to shorter meetings and an agenda review meeting came out to the same amount of time. He commented that there was also the question of Council discussion in terms of policy versus minutia lengthening meetings. He concurred with Councilor Tierney that last Tuesday's meeting had little business and much community celebration, which was not a bad thing. He concurred with Councilor Olson that they needed to balance those two elements. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that he believed that the City Council, as the only elected body in Lake Oswego, had an obligation to do the community celebrations and proclamations. Councilor Tierney concurred, and clarified that he thought the presentations, such as the presentation on sustainability in support of the proclamation, had gone on too long. He spoke of managing the presentations and limiting their length. Ms. Christie mentioned that staff made it clear to presenters that they had five minutes, but people did like to keep talking once they got going. She noted that she could put the timer up in a visible location so that the presenters could see it. Mr. Hertzberg reviewed the suggestions that he heard in his conversations with the Council members. These included more structure in the Council discussion (everyone speaking once and everyone exercising more discipline), more parsimonious use of speakers with clear purpose and clear direction, place important items early in the agenda, schedule one important item per night, set a 'no later than' limit on decision-making, put a time limit on the meeting, and pace issues out over six months. • Citizen Comment Councilor Johnson raised the issue of Citizen Comment. She noted that she had supported increasing the time limit to five minutes. She held that the purpose of Citizen Comment did not include an organized group hijacking the Council meeting to focus on their issue. She argued that the purpose of the business meeting was to get the business done that the Council members were elected to do. She proposed setting a 15 to 20 minute time limit on Citizen Comment as an agenda item and giving Mayor Hoffman more latitude in enforcing the time limits. Mr. Powell mentioned that the Council procedures set a 30 -minute time limit for Citizen Comment. Councilor Tierney commented that it sounded good on paper but noted that it was difficult to tell someone waiting for his/her chance to speak that he/she could not speak because the 30 minutes were up. He acknowledged that some citizens did not care that there was a time limit, but he wondered whether the Council wanted to antagonize an influential citizen who had something to say. Councilor Johnson argued that the Council had to take the time limits seriously and support the Mayor when he announced the time limits. Councilor Jordan suggested limiting the amount of time allowed for one particular topic. Mayor Hoffman indicated that it would help him if the Council spoke with one voice in setting time limits. Councilor Jordan observed that the Council members asking questions of citizens also contributed to a lengthy Citizen Comment item. She commented that, technically, there was not supposed to be interaction with the Council during that item. Mayor Hoffman agreed that Citizen Comment was for citizens to present information to the Council. Mr. Powell indicated that the problem with setting a time limit on a topic assumed an organized group. However, if the Mayor took the cards in order and announced that he would cut off the comment period when the time limit was reached, that could work. Councilor Moncrieff recalled that, as a citizen commenting, she had found two to three minutes sufficient time. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that the Council extended the time limit to five minutes because, during the campaign, citizens had said that three minutes was not enough time. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Tierney asked Mr. McIntyre where he saw opportunities for the Council to streamline the meeting. Mr. McIntyre commented that staff built the agenda trying to be sensitive to inflammatory topics versus low-key topics. He reiterated that it was hard to predict how long any given item would take. Mr. McIntyre remarked that staff usually knew in advance when a meeting would be hijacked. He suggested that the Mayor strategize around it in order to keep the meeting moving along. He suggested allowing public comment for 20 minutes, and then continuing it to the end of the meeting. Therefore, those wanting to hijack the meeting, instead of going home early, would have to stick around to the end of the meeting, as the Council did. He pointed out that if the staff was doing good staff work, then the staff recommendation was relatively sound; if not, then the Council asked questions. If a Council member could ask staff for clarification before the meeting, that was fine. He commented that he did not think that the Council always perceived when the members were all in agreement, and thus, the members kept discussing a topic on which they were ready to vote. He indicated to Mr. Hertzberg that he could help the Mayor see when that was occurring and move the process to a vote. Councilor Tierney commented that the written staff reports were very thorough, and that he did not need to hear the same information presented again in the oral staff reports. Mr. McIntyre agreed. He explained that the oral staff reports were more for the citizens to hear what information the Council has already received and to see the work that has already been done. He mentioned the public's perception of the last Council that staff would introduce a topic to the Council and the Council would vote on it that same night, essentially 'ramrodding' the decision through. Councilor Johnson mentioned that she was not concerned about shortening scheduled public hearing discussions. Councilor Jordan suggested that each Councilor limit his/her speaking opportunity to two to three salient points. Mayor Hoffman could stop the discussion after each member has spoken and ask if there were any last minute comments before the vote. Councilor Olson spoke in support of limiting a topic not on the agenda to 15 minutes, although the Council did need to be careful about its Citizen Engagement goal. She held that the Alder Circle people had had the right to come and speak to the Council as they did. She indicated that what she has heard from the Sensitive Lands group was that they had no sense of back and forth engagement with the Council. She noted that citizens could not speak at study sessions, and round tables were more for presenting information than for engaging the Council. She suggested that the Council meet with the group to hear their PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Powell informed the Council that the Council rules said that Citizen Comment shall not exceed 30 minutes unless the Council votes to suspend the rules. Therefore, technically, if the Council wanted to shorten or lengthen Citizen Comment, the Council should make a motion to suspend the rules. He indicated that there was no problem with taking a hard line on maintaining the 30 -minute rule. He indicated that the Council rules of procedure also gave the maker of the motion the privilege of final comment on the motion, which he noted the Council did not always follow. Councilor Moncrieff suggested planning a short agenda if staff knew that a group like the Sensitive Lands group intended to speak at Citizen Comment. She asked how the Council as a whole meeting with the Sensitive Lands group would be different from meeting with the Waluga Neighborhood Association on the Oakridge proposal. Councilor Olson pointed out that the Sensitive Lands group has requested a meeting, which other groups with agendas at Citizen Comment have not done. She suggested the meeting as a possible way to avoid future hijacking of Citizen Comment by this group. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that she did tell the group to come to the round table. However, she did not think that the round table was the right forum. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Tierney spoke in support of the Council going out to the community and asking them for their opinion, as they did about the West End Building. He commented that the Sensitive Lands group had some valid issues. He mentioned that, when he and Councilor Olson met with them, he not only learned a lot but he found most of them to be reasonable people. He speculated that if the Council could discuss the issues with the reasonable contingent, they could likely find a solution. Councilor Jordan discussed managing the expectations of the citizen group. She commented that a group expecting the Council at a meeting to direct staff to do this or that held a false expectation. She observed that the group simply wanting to air their concerns and frustrations before the Council was a different situation. She described Citizen Comment as similar to a town hall forum, in which citizens brought their concerns to the Council but the Council did not make a decision there and then about the concerns or make any promises that things would be different from the way they were. She suggested advertising an evening public meeting to which anyone could come and using a round table format focusing on the specific topic of sensitive lands. Councilor Hennagin indicated that he would not be offended if Mayor Hoffman pointed out during a discussion on a motion that the Council seemed to agree on the issue and asked if anyone wanted to speak against the motion. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was willing to do that. Mr. Hertzberg suggested that the Council tell the public that, as a result of its discussion of the long meetings at its mid -year review, the Council members have agreed to tighten things up for the City and the Council, and they would like the public to do its part as well. Mayor Hoffman discussed his reasoning behind setting a round table on the sensitive lands issue for August 8. He mentioned being told that this was an issue of community -wide concern. He speculated that a sample of hundred landowners out of the 2,000 or so concerned about this issue might show up at the August meeting. He pointed out that this was not the Council's sole public engagement effort on this issue. Councilor Olson commented that she thought that was an unrealistic expectation because so many people were out of town in August. She concurred with Councilor Jordan's suggestion of a town hall -type meeting because she thought that the citizen group had the same idea. She held that the group was not expecting decisions or promises, but neither did they simply want to vent about their personal situations. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that there was a very large group of reasonable people concerned about this issue, from whom the Council has never heard or engaged. She commented that these people loved the city and wanted the City to do the right thing. She reiterated that, as a group of concerned citizens, they have not yet had an opportunity to talk to the Council. She argued that the Council as a whole needed to hear their concerns, but held that that would not occur on August 8. She said that, if few people showed up on August 8, she did not want to hear the conclusion that the poor turnout meant that it was not really an issue, and that the Council was done with it. Councilor Tierney asked whether the Council could accept the invitation from the sensitive lands group and schedule a meeting. Mayor Hoffman indicated that holding a separate meeting was fine with him, but then it became an agenda scheduling issue. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that a public meeting held outside the Council Chambers at which the Council heard information presented by citizens did not constitute a field trip. He supported meeting in the City Council chambers, as that was an accessible location, which accommodated the public and allowed the meeting to be televised. Mayor Hoffman noted that the goal of the meeting was for the group to make their PowerPoint presentation and for the Council and the staff to listen. He stated that there would not be any engagement. Councilor OI on pointed out that what the citizens wanted was engagement in asking the Council questions and receiving answers. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Johnson stated that, as a Councilor, she could not give any answers or have a dialog until after she heard from the Second Look Work Group. She commented that many in this group have already stated their concerns to the Council as a whole at a Council meeting, but that was insufficient for them. She agreed that the Council needed a policy discussion on Councilor Olson's point, which was valid, but she thought it should be done in a larger context, as this was not the only group of reasonable people who have had a serious issue with the City. She indicated that she did not see the difference between this sort of meeting and lengthy public comment, neither of which would solve the problem. Mayor Hoffman commented that he could answer questions about definitions, takings, the concept of personal property versus the common good, Titles 3 and 13, and Goal 5, but he could not answer questions about why individual properties were selected. Councilor Olson said that this group wanted the broader policy discussion. Councilor Tierney asked if it was all right for him to tell people that he wanted to hear what they had to say because he was learning about the issues, while at the same time clearly stating that he was not speaking for the Council nor could he provide any answers. Councilor Johnson said that she thought that was fine, but she reiterated her concerns about unrealistic citizen expectations concerning a meeting with the Council. Councilor Olson indicated to Mr. Hertzberg that she did not know what the group's expectations were nor could she speak for the group. She said that what little she knew for sure was that the group felt that they had educational information for the Council. She commented that apparently hearing this information changed how Councilor Tierney viewed the issue. She said that she thought the group felt that it has not been given the time to make a rational and comprehensive presentation on their specific issues and questions. She indicated that she doubted that they expected answers the same night. She commented that the Council's willingness to listen to them, even without any answers, would be a huge positive step. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she did not feel prepared to see brand new information in a PowerPoint presentation that she had never seen before, and to comment on it immediately. She supported Councilor Jordan's idea of a public town hall. Mr. Hertzberg summarized the two possibilities he heard in the discussion. One was a Council meeting at which people could make a formal presentation and ask questions but with the clear understanding that the Council would not give any answers. The Council was there to listen. The second possibility was that any individual Council member could reach out to a group and explain that he/she was in a learning mode. Councilor Moncrieff commented that it would be helpful to her to receive the presentation information in advance. Councilor Hennagin indicated his preference for holding a Council meeting where the group could make its presentation to educate the Council, as opposed to individual Council member efforts. Councilor Jordan commented that the word `educate' bothered her. She indicated that, while she would appreciate understanding their individual issues, she would want to ask questions of the technical committee or the staff about those issues. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was fine with holding the meeting but he would not engage the group by answering questions. He said that staff was supposed to educate the Council by providing information and data. He cautioned the Council that they would be hearing from only 50 to 100 landowners out of the 2,000 affected. He commented that he did not know whether the smaller group was representative of the larger group. He mentioned staff in relation to the Council hearing information from a self-interested minority that would not be presenting unbiased data. He indicated that he did not want to denigrate staff. Councilor Olson argued that the Council received biased information from staff. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 30 July 27, 2009 Councilor Moncrieff asked that the Council invite the citizen group to a meeting, rather than vice versa. • M eting Management Mr. Hertzberg returned the discussion to meeting management in general. He reviewed the list of items agreed upon by the Council. • Agenda management - How issues were scheduled on the calendar - How topics were set up on the agenda - Making sure that presentations were relevant, targeted, and managed • Public Comment - Enforcing the five minute and thirty minute time limits • Discussion Management - Empowering Mayor Hoffman, upon sensing that the Council was in agreement on an motion, to ask whether the Council was ready to vote - Empowering Mayor Hoffman to start a final go round with the motion maker having the last comment - Everyone needed to be mindful to be brief in their comments Mayor Hoffman commented that he felt comfortable enforcing the time limits as long as the Council supported him. He mentioned doing 15 minutes at the beginning and 15 minutes at the end, if it looked like there was a big crowd and the Council had a full agenda. He concurred with Councilor Tierney's suggestion to open up the end of the meeting Citizen Comment, noting that the Council would stay as long as the citizens stayed. Councilor Jordan suggested that staff review the Citizen Comment sheets to let individual speakers go first, and a group of speakers on the same topic go last. Mayor Hoffman noted that usually they took the cards in order, but he and Ms. Christie could group them. Mr. Powell advised the Council that, if it allowed everyone to speak, grouping the cards would be fine. However, if the Council intended to cut people off, then the Mayor needed to take the cards in order or the Council was making content -based decisions about who got to talk and who did not. Councilor Jordan clarified that, in the event of the Mayor splitting Citizen Comment up, she did not want to see someone who came to talk about a charity event have to sit through until the end of the meeting Tuesday Morning Meeting Mr. Hertzberg noted that the Council did not decide on whether to hold a Tuesday morning meeting to prepare beforehand for the business meeting. Councilor Johnson spoke of trying a Tuesday morning meeting that was no longer than half an hour and holding the Executive Sessions at the end of the day. Councilor Jordan discussed her preference to start the Executive Sessions early before the Tuesday night meetings, and to give the management system a try for a few meetings before instituting a Tuesday morning meeting. She indicated that she was willing to meet on Tuesday mornings, if that turned out to be necessary. Councilor Hennagin commented that he would not mind experimenting with a Tuesday morning meeting, but he was willing to try Councilor Jordan's suggestion first. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 30 July 27, 2009 • Meeting Length Mr. McIntyre raised the issue of meeting length as it impacted setting the agenda. He described his dilemma as whether to put more items on an agenda resulting in a longer meeting, to hold more meetings, or to put off items to a later meeting, which ran into decision-making crunches. Councilor Jordan recalled that the previous Council held Monday afternoon study sessions just to get through the issues. Mayor Hoffman commented that he and Ms. Christie have been discussing scheduling some Monday afternoon meetings. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the Arts Council wanted to talk with the Council regarding their plans and fundraising efforts. She noted that the vote on the Arts Council contract was scheduled for the September 1 regular meeting, yet she doubted that most Council members were up to speed on the Arts Council. She suggested asking the Arts Council to address the Council prior to the vote. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff could move the contract to the September 15 meeting and invite the Arts Council to the September 1 meeting. The Council concurred. Mayor Hoffman suggested a Monday study session to get the Council well-grounded in SDCs prior to the Water SDC methodology discussion scheduled for September 29. He noted that there was also a list of items for Council discussion currently unscheduled. He mentioned meeting with the new Lake Corporation Board, meeting with the School Board, holding a brainstorming, big picture meeting with the Planning Commission and the Development Review Commission, and holding a real estate development workshop. The Council discussed how often to meet each week. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that meeting three or four nights a week was too many. Councilor Tierney concurred. He spoke to starting meetings at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. out of respect for those with day jobs. The Council agreed on an extra meeting Monday evenings as needed, starting at 6 p.m. Ms. Christie noted that the Council could not use the Council Chambers on Monday nights, as the Planning Commission and Development Review Board met there on alternate Mondays. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he would work with the Mayor and Ms. Christie to schedule items for the Monday study sessions. Mayor Hoffman raised the issue of national conferences. He said that he would attend the Railvolution conference, October 30 through November 1, in Boston. He explained that this was a critically important conference for Lake Oswego to attend, as the attendees would discuss streetcar funding and legislation relevant to Lake Oswego's interests. He mentioned the National Congressional Cities Conference in San Antonio on November 15. He encouraged Council members to attend a national conference in order to gain a different perspective. He announced a meeting on August 18 or August 19 to discuss Metro Centers and Corridors, as well as the UGB. He explained that he needed to get a sense of the Council's position on these issues, as he would begin attending meetings in September where people would ask him what the Council's aspirations were. The Council agreed to meet on August 18. Mr. Hertzberg read the ground rules developed by the 1996 Council. These included do not speak negatively about other Council members in public, if you have a problem with someone, go directly to that person, and when decisions are made, support them and move on. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 5:47 p.m. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 30 July 27, 2009 Respectfully submitted, �j� 0296� Robyn C ristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON October 20. 2009 D. H City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 30 July 27, 2009