Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-11-17 O,LAKE OS „so fr,c0 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING �A► 1 MINUTES �_ / November 17, 2009 GEGON Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on November 17, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Councilor Jordan was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Police Captain Mike Hammons; Bonnie Hirshberger, Citiz n Information Coordinator; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Gary Evans, Asst Parks & Recreation Director; David Donaldson, Asst City Manager; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Maintenance Services Director; David Gilbey, Water Quality Program Coordinator Youth Council Present: Youth Councilor Chandrana 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award presented to Captain Michael Hammons Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Captain Michael Hammons in appreciation for his 25 years of service. He reviewed Captain Hammons' history with the Lake Oswego Police Department, beginning in 1985. He thanked him for his service to the citizens of Lake Oswego. Captain Hammons observed that part of the Athenian Oath challenged the citizens to constantly question and challenge their leaders in order to build a better society. He commented that nowhere has he seen this part of the oath followed so completely as by the citizens of Lake Oswego. 3.2 2009 Lake Oswego Photo Contest winner recognition and photo display Mayor Hoffman presented awards to the first place winners of the 2009 Lake Oswego Photo Contest, and reviewed a brief history of each winner. These included Jhon Williams (Life in Lake Oswego, "Christmas on the Lake"), Kevin Brown (Lake Oswego Places, "Archway at George Rogers Park"), Michael Berger (Lake Oswego's Events and Activities, "Nightlife Downtown"), Chris Thompson (People of Lake Oswego "Battling the Elements"), Greg Seitz (Potpourri, "Train"), and Jim Hokinson (Historic Photos, "Lake Oswego Police Cars"). Mayor Hoffman also named the Runners Up and the Honorable Mentions. Ms. Hirshberger thanked all who entered the 170 photos and the 2,300 people who voted. 3.3 Update on Foothills Dock Ms. Gilmer commented that, while this project has been on going for some time, the end was in sight. She reviewed the project's history, beginning with a grant award in 2005 for$529,000 to design and construct the dock. She mentioned that it took a year and a half to move through the public process and achieve a design that satisfied all interests. She explained that, after awarding the construction bid to Axis Crane, the City began construction in May 2008 within the in-water work period for the Willamette River (July 1 through October 31). City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 26 November 17, 2009 However, when the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a letter of intent to sue the US Army Corps of Engineers over their permit process and fish concerns, the Corps suspended the City's work permit, which halted the project. She indicated that the City stored the gangway, dock, and pilings for installation in 2009 following the Corps' re-evaluation of the City's permit. But then the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a letter of complaint against the Corps for another issue related to the dock, which went to District Court. Although the judge ruled in favor of the Corps and allowed Lake Oswego to have a valid permit, the Council decided to wait on installation until after the 60-day appeal period expired in September 2009. She said that the City got 90% of the dock installed before the in-water work period expired on October 31. She explained that, while installing the dock pilings, six of the ten piles hit bedrock before the contractor could sink them to the 30 foot depth needed for sufficient stabilization. She recalled that staff had known that that was a possibility but opted not to do the geotechnical analysis because the analysis would cost as much as driving the piles; if they hit bedrock, then they would simply proceed with the work needed to drive the piles in. She indicated that the Army Corps denied the City's request for an extension of the in-water work period. Therefore, they needed to suspend the work until next summer. She recalled that staff had explained to Council in an Executive Session before construction began that waiting until next summer to install the dock would cost over$65,000 in storage fees and a delay of work claim, plus require re-negotiating the construction contract for increased labor costs. She reviewed the costs of the two options for storing the materials: just under$40,000 for storage at Foothills Park, and over $116,000 for offsite storage. She described the process that the contractor would use to remove the pilings and store them onsite, which saved on re-mobilization costs and storage fees next year. She indicated that these costs left the City with approximately $30,000 remaining in the grant. She recalled that the City has only spent around $20,000 of its own money for design work several years ago. She recalled staff speculation in 2006 that the City might have to spend $100,000 to $129,000 of its own money to install the piles if they hit bedrock. That was now the case, and staff estimated a cost of$106,000 to complete the project. She mentioned that the Marine Board was willing to talk about splitting the cost with the City. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Evans indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractors had to remove all the pilings, even the two securely installed, because of safety concerns. Ms. Gilmer clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the City would have had to spend $65,000 in storage fees and contractor costs if it had decided not to build the dock this fall. The City obtained some savings by storing the materials on site. Mr. Evans mentioned additional savings of not having to re-negotiate the contract because the City did not stop the work. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the contractor had the necessary equipment to do the work, but the in-water work permit did not allow work beyond October 31. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that there would be no increased labor costs because the City was still operating under the original contract. She clarified to the Councilor that, in March 2007, the Council approved a budget of$129,000. However, staff did not re-budget the project the next year because the actual bid cost came in considerably under the grant money. Mr. McIntyre explained that it was a timing issue within the budget process. He indicated that this item would be in next year's budget because they could not do any in-water work until July 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 November 17, 2009 He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the hotel/motel tax revenues were a possible funding source, except that the City has dedicated all the hotel/motel tax revenues for the next four years to the restoration of the furnace. Ms. Gilmer reiterated that staff would make a formal request of the Marine Board with the hope that it might split the cost with the City. • Introduction of New Finance Director Mr. Donaldson introduced Ursula Euler as the City's new Finance Director. He reviewed her education and her background in finance in both the public and private sectors. Mayor Hoffman welcomed Ms. Euler to the City. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Johnson moved the consent agenda. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [6-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Resignation of Phil Burgess from the Historic Resources Advisory Board Action: Accept Resignation 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 09-63, initiating a Partition Plat Vacation Request for 775, 787, and 799 Country Club Road Action: Adopt Resolution 09-63 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 September 8, 2009, special meeting 4.3.2 September 14, 2009, special meeting 4.3.3 September 15, 2009, regular meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT • Scot Schoen, 13521 Snowberry Court He noted that, since his last visit, Ms. Gilmer has provided the Council with several options and costs for a Westside off leash dog area. He indicated that the 40 families for whom he has become the defacto spokesperson were still looking for a dog park on this side of town. He asked where they went from here. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff was waiting to get the three options on the Council agenda for feedback on which option to pursue. He noted that the matter also required a budget allocation. Mr. Schoen acknowledged that Council action might take several months, but pointed out that, in the meantime, dog owners had no place to take their dogs. He indicated that staff has informed him that going back to Westlake Park was not an option, even though several dog owners have lobbied for it. He clarified that there were actually more than 40 families who wanted to see this move forward in the City's process. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 November 17, 2009 Mayor Hoffman said that he would work with staff to get the dog park on a study session agenda. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Appeal of a Development Review Commission decision to deny a one-parcel partition for the purpose of lot legalization, lot line adjustment, variance, and tree removal [AP 09-04/LU 09-0009]. The site is located at 16715 Phantom Bluff Ct. and the adjacent vacant parcel to the east. Mr. Powell reviewed the standard quasi-judicial land use hearing procedure and criteria and the public testimony time limits. He asked if any Council member wished to declare any conflicts of interest, bias, or ex parte contacts. Councilors Olson and Tierney each declared a site visit. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Ms. Andreades gave a PowerPoint presentation presenting the basic facts of the case. She began with the vicinity zoning map and identified the locations of the two lots in question Tax Lot 1902 (seeking lot legalization) and Tax Lot 1900 (seeking a lot line adjustment). She explained that because the 33-foot functional width of Tax Lot 1902 did not meet the minimum 65 foot lot width requirement for the R-10 zone, the applicant had to look to LOC 50.01.030(3) to legalize the lot. This provision allowed an exemption from the lot width and depth requirements if the potential development would not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood through noise, scale, traffic, parking, privacy buffers, and obstructions of views. She noted the location of Tax Lot 2600, whose owners contended that the potential development on Tax Lot 1902 would obstruct their view in violation of the cited code section. She referenced the DRC findings in noting that both staff and the Commission agreed that a potential development would impact the Yearsleys' property (Tax Lot 2600). However, the question was whether that impact was a significant negative impact. She explained that an assessment of whether the proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood pattern was the tool to use in answering that question. She indicated that the staff found the evidence submitted to the DRC with respect to the neighborhood pattern sufficient to recommend approval. She showed the topographic map on which staff relied in determining the neighborhood development pattern and concluding that the proposed development would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern compared to what could be built on the lot if it met the width requirement. She said that the DRC denied the application and found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate what kind of structure was proposed or to demonstrate what the neighborhood pattern was for comparison. She indicated that the questions for the Council were whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the pattern of development in the neighborhood, and whether the proposed development would be consistent with that pattern. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Ms. Andreades explained to Mayor Hoffman that because this lot did not sit on a public street, technically its width was zero, as the Code measured lot width from a public street. However, functionally its width was 33 feet. She confirmed that there was an easement to get from the road to the tax lot. She clarified to Councilor Hennagin that Mr. Sundeleaf, the original owner of several lots on Phantom Bluff Court, deeded off the lots and created them by `mets and bounds' (a description of the lot). She indicated that the Glasses now owned 16715 Phantom Bluff Court, which had been Mr. Sundeleaf's property. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 November 17, 2009 She indicated that the Yearsleys owned a thin strip of land for lake access, which was part of the Sundeleaf deeded properties. She said that the lot line adjustment, which would be subsequent to the lot legalization, was between 16715 Phantom Bluff Court and the Puterbaugh property (Tax Lot 1902). She confirmed Mayor Hoffman's observation that it was a fireplace lot line adjustment. She explained that Mr. Puterbaugh and Mr. Camerman (the owner of 16715 Phantom Bluff Court before the Glasses) had a private agreement as part of a condition of approval for his lot legalization in 2003 to make sure that there was three feet of separation between his historic fireplace and his lot line. She said that the plat was recorded without meeting that condition; this lot line adjustment would meet that condition. Councilor Tierney asked if the City had any precedents on lot legalizations under these circumstances. Ms. Andreades said that the Glass property should have dealt with the issue of zero lot width due to no public street at the time of its lot legalization in 2003, but that did not happen because the functional lot width and depth met the zone lot width and depth requirements. Mayor Hoffman commented that the City has legalized lots before, including in First Addition. Ms. Andreades said that all the Phantom Bluff Court lots came in for legalization in 1991, but the plats for the legalized lots were never recorded, and eventually became void. She indicated that the 1991 lot legalization was not done with the exception for a private street. Councilor Tierney asked why staff recommended its conditions of approval. Ms. Andreades explained that the original conditions of approval listed on p.50 were the standard conditions of approval for a development application. She indicated that the conditions listed on pp. 112-113 were the additional conditions of approval that staff recommended to the DRC in response to the Commission's concern about obstruction of view. Ms. Andreades explained that, at the continued hearing, staff recommended requiring the applicant's proposed shed roof(sloping from 35 feet to 24 feet) as a condition of approval in order to minimize the obstruction of view to the Yearsleys (Exhibit F-13). She indicated to Councilor Tierney that she thought that this was the first time that this issue has come up in a lot legalization request. She noted that everyone agreed that the point of reference in defining the obstruction of view would be from one particular property. She reiterated that in determining whether that impact was significant or not, staff looked at the total neighborhood pattern. Mr. Powell noted the additional condition of approval that the City not allow the applicant to use the height exception allowable under the Code (p. 5, November 5, 2009 report). Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that frequently the City found that an access driveway was deficient in its turning radius for fire apparatus. The Fire Department's standard condition was to require a residential fire sprinkler system. Councilor Hennagin asked, given that the lot legalization and the building permit were two separate and distinct issues, whether, in order to legalize a lot, the Code permitted the Council to put restrictions on the building over and above what the zone would allow for a building permit. Ms. Andreades clarified that the issue was the lot's inability to meet the zone's standards for the minimum lot width and depth required for a building permit. She explained that LOC 50.01.030(3) allowed an exemption for a property not meeting its zone's dimensional standards if an applicant could show that the lot, if legalized and developed, would not have a significant negative impact. Councilor Hennagin commented that it seemed contradictory to have an ordinance that prohibited a property owner from cutting down trees in order to protect a view, and an ordinance that restricted development in order to protect someone's view. He observed that the DRC appeared to have made a subjective decision in concluding that the drawings depicting the shape and height of the proposed residenc demonstrated that the house would obstruct the view too much. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 November 17, 2009 Ms. Andreades pointed out that the question was what a significant negative impact was. She indicated that the DRC did not find sufficient evidence to establish what the neighborhood pattern was for use in determining whether the acknowledged impact would be a significant negative impact or not. She reiterated that staff found sufficient evidence to conceptualize what that would be but the DRC did not find the evidence sufficient. Mr. Powell clarified that this Code section allowed the Council to impose conditions on a lot legalization in order to achieve consistency with the existing development pattern in the vicinity, if it determined that the proposed development's impacts on views went beyond the development pattern of the neighborhood. He indicated that those conditions could be more stringent than what the Code would otherwise apply to the lot. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Code did allow the DRC to continue the hearing for additional evidence, and the Council to remand the application to the DRC for additional evidence within the 120-day clock. Ms. Andreades indicated that the DRC did continue the hearing and made a site visit in the interim; the applicant could have submitted additional evidence at that time. Mayor Hoffman asked how staff and/or the DRC construed the term 'neighborhood.' Ms. Andreades said that this Code section did not define 'neighborhood.' She indicated that she would define the neighborhood in this case as Phantom Bluff Court. Councilor Tierney indicated that he read the DRC minutes and findings as defining `neighborhood' as one home, and applied obstruction of view to one lot. Ms. Andreades indicated that they could measure obstruction of view from one home, but the question of whether the obstruction created a significant negative impact required looking at the neighborhood pattern. Mayor Hoffman asked what staff's interpretation was of the existing development pattern in the vicinity. Ms. Andreades described the existing development pattern as large lots with large homes spread horizontally across the lot and oriented to the lake. She indicated that staff looked at what obstruction of view would occur if the lot were developed in that pattern. Ms. Andreades confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the two lots to the northeast were developable, and that the City could anticipate a replication of the house at 16661 on those two lots. Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Tierney that the width of the lot at the point where the Puterbaughs proposed siting the house was wide enough to constitute a legal lot if Phantom Bluff Court were a public street. Councilor Olson asked if the owners of 16661 owned the two lots to the northeast. Ms. Andreades said that, while she did not know, she thought it likely. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the lot adjacent to 16661 was illegal because it lacked access to a public road. Ms. Andreades noted that none of the lots on Phantom Bluff Court had access to a public road. Councilor Olson asked how staff's recommendation reconciled with staff's interpretation of a consistent neighborhood pattern of development characterized by large lots with large homes oriented horizontally to the lake. Ms. Andreades acknowledged that the combination of setbacks and lot configuration forced the applicant to orient his house in a northwest-southeast direction, rather than horizontally across the lot. She explained that the question staff considered was whether orienting the proposed development horizontally would create more of a view obstruction than the proposed orientation, which staff concluded was a possibility. Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that staff considered consistency with the neighborhood pattern only as it related to the view from the Yearsleys' property because that was the issue that came up. Everyone agreed that the development would not have a significant negative impact on the other factors referenced in the Code section. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. APPLICANT City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 November 17, 2009 • Gary Shepherd, attorney representing the applicant/appellant, 3115 SE Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon He mentioned that the Puterbaughs have paid real property taxes at developable values on Tax Lot 1902 since they purchased the property in 1972. In addition, the Puterbaughs have contributed annually to the Lake Corporation and contributed substantially to the construction of sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements along Phantom Bluff Court. He pointed out that this property, which had been part of the larger Sundeleaf estate (Tax Lots 1900, 1902, 1800, and 1905), was created prior to the City adopting partition regulations using the customary sale and recording process. He concurred that the lot did not meet the present day lot dimension requirements, but neither did the Glass property (Tax Lots 1900 and1905), which was legalized in 2003 through a similar lot legalization process. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Glass property was illegal for the same reasons as the Puterbaugh property was illegal. When Mr. Sundeleaf sold off Tax Lots 1902 and 1800, the remainder of his property became illegal because the City deemed it a partition. He explained that, due to circumstances beyond Mr. Puterbaugh's control, the lot legalization approval he received from the City Council in 1991 was not finally recorded, which necessitated the current application. He commented that the legislative history clearly indicated that the lot legalization standards found in LOC 50.01.030 were created and amended specifically to address situations in which a property owner was caught in the middle, such as having a lot on a private street that did not meet the City's lot dimension requirements. He referenced the legislative history in noting that the City's intent was that subsection 3 would apply to substantially substandard lots, and that such a lot would require additional review with respect to negative impacts. He indicated that he did not think that this 13,000 square foot lot in an R-10 zone was substantially substandard. He noted that it substantially exceeded the lot length requirements. Even with its narrowness, there was ample room on the lot to site a dwelling and meet all setback requirements. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the lot was 50 feet wide at the point where Mr. Puterbaugh proposed siting the house (p.305). The property width increased to over 70 feet down by the lake. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the minimum lot width in an R-10 zone was 65 feet, which meant that the lot width at the site of the house should also be 65 feet, yet it was only 50 feet wide at that point. Mr. Shepherd indicated to Councilor Olson that they would stay away from the 70-foot wide area because it was on a cliff. He discussed the direction provided in the legislative history regarding the application of the standard, namely that the legalization of the lot not have a significant negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that it be consistent with the development pattern on adjacent properties. He argued that the standard allowed the review body to impose additional conditions in order to meet the standard. He contended that the staff correctly interpreted the legislative history and the plain language of the standard in finding that the application met the standard when correctly applied. He stated that, based on his review of the DRC minutes and findings, he did not think that the DRC correctly applied the standard. He argued that the Commission's focus on determining whether the design significantly impacted the Yearsleys' view, as Chair Heredia directed it to do, was the incorrect focus. He indicated that the exhibits in the room were the evidence regarding the neighborhood development pattern that the applicant provided to the DRC at the evidentiary hearing, per the DRC's request at the initial hearing for additional evidence. He stated that, at the evidentiary hearing, the DRC denied his request to explain the applicant's evidence orally, and made its decision without that explanation. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that his written description of the evidence was in the record. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 November 17, 2009 He noted that the essential criterion to consider was the pattern of development, as shown in the exhibits and on p.323. He pointed out the pattern of building homes up the hillside with the lower homes partially or fully obstructing the lake views of the homes higher up the hill. He argued that this tiered pattern of development occurred not only on Phantom Bluff Court but also in the Palisades neighborhood and across the lake as well. He reviewed the photos in the record showing the views from homes along Phantom Bluff Court to the lake (pp.313 - 315). He noted that the views were of trees, houses, and vegetation with no one having an unobstructed view of the lake. He reiterated that clearly the pattern of development was obstructed views and tiered housing development. He pointed out that many of the properties in this R-10 district could be subdivided, which meant more development in the area. He presented the depictions requested by the DRC of what the proposed house might look like on the property. He indicated the computer renditions showed the home built into the hillside. He mentioned the two depictions on p. 283 and p. 284 of an actual picture taken from the Yearsleys' residence looking out towards the lake, which showed the view through the trees and what unobstructed view of the lake remained for the Yearsleys. He noted that the Yearsleys also had to look through the trees on their own property to see the lake. He presented views to the west of the Puterbaughs. He mentioned the 80-foot view from the Glass property that remained, even with the proposed development (p.284), and the 35-foot corridor view between the Puterbaugh proposed home and the Smith home. Ms. Andreades clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the picture on p.284 showed the concept of the structure that would result with the second set of conditions, which required the shed roof to slope from 35 feet down to 24 feet (p.113). She indicated that the structure would not be taller, wider, or closer to the street than shown on p.284. She explained that the setbacks prevented the house from sitting closer to the street. Mr. Shepherd presented representations of the views that would remain of the lake from the Yearsleys' residence. He commented that the Puterbaughs' proposal represented only a small sliver of those views. He noted that only a small portion of the proposed house would be visible through the trees. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the home shown on p.284 was conceptual based upon the conditions that the applicant voluntarily recommended be imposed on his application. He confirmed that the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. He described the process his team used in conceptualizing the home. He discussed the elevation drawings. He pointed out the building of the home into the hill and low down on the property. He indicated their belief that, although they conceptualized the home at an elevation of 211 feet, they could go down to 209 feet. He emphasized that they were trying to do what they could to make the views over the house as good as possible. He mentioned that he had also thought that the lot legalization and the building permit were two separate processes. He noted the work they did in response to the DRC's request for additional information about the neighborhood views, the development pattern, and the proposed development. He said that the DRC did not allow him to review that information either. He argued that the standards specifically allowed for the Council and any legal authority to impose conditions to mitigate any development impacts. He mentioned that staff suggested two conditions, to which the applicant added several others in order to lessen the impact as much as possible to the Yearsleys. He described the proposed development as a two-story house with a basement and smaller than the house size typically found in the neighborhood. He said that the applicant recommended to the DRC that he waive all right to a height exception, which would keep the home at a 35-foot City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 November 17, 2009 maximum height with the front at 12 feet high. He indicated that they would lower the proposed 18-foot high garage to 12 feet. He reiterated that they were building the house low down on the property, just far enough back from the cliff to allow safe passage, and into the hill as much as possible. He pointed out that, while they could build a long narrow house higher up on the property and still meet the setbacks, doing so would block the views extremely. He stated that he did not think that the DRC's findings were correct. He argued that it was not an evidentiary issue, but rather it was an issue of the DRC not being able to agree on the conditions to apply to this application, and focusing on the narrow view of the Yearsleys' property while ignoring the panoramic view that remained. He showed the views over the Puterbaugh property, the Smith house and the Glass house, none of which would be impacted by this development. He contended that there was plenty of evidence provided regarding the neighborhood development patterns. He referenced Councilor Tierney's question about precedents. He cited a 2004 lot legalization in First Addition, in which the home also fit within the lot setbacks without any variances. He commented that he thought that the DRC also had trouble establishing a point at which to measure height. He suggested setting an elevation cap of 209 feet above sea level instead. He noted on a map that the top of a shed on the Glass property was at 214 feet in elevation. He indicated that the pictures showed an elevation height of 211 feet, which they believed they could drop down to 209 feet, depending on where they struck bedrock. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Shepherd clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the garage roof as shown on p. 283 was 13 feet high. He explained that the garage appeared taller because it was closest to the street frontage. He mentioned that the home would be set a few feet lower than the garage because they could build it into the hillside. He reiterated that setting an elevation above sea level cap resolved the issue of where to measure from. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he worked on construction crews in rock in Lake Oswego years ago. He commented that the applicant might find rock that would explode the construction costs. Mr. Shepherd noted that their proposed condition was to go down as far as practicable under the conditions. Mr. Shepherd indicated to Councilor Olson that drawing showed the peak elevation of the shed on the Glass property at 214.7 feet, and the proposed garage on the Puterbaugh property at 211 to 211.5 feet. He explained that the garage looked taller than the shed because of the way the picture was represented but the drawing elevations indicated otherwise. He reiterated their hope to lower the elevation of the home by a couple more feet, which would be five feet lower than the shed. He noted that the street, Phantom Bluff Court, had an elevation of rising 216 feet to 222 feet. He explained that it was the elevation numbers that really mattered, as a 35-foot home sitting high up on the lot had a higher elevation than a 35-foot home sitting lower down on the lot. He noted on a drawing that the ridge on the Smith property was at 201 feet, while an existing garage elsewhere was at 228 feet. Ms. Andreades clarified that, because of a cross slope on the Glass property, the picture showing the shed placement was not showing the same elevation. Mr. Powell addressed the issue of Mr. Shepherd's assertion that he was not allowed to speak before the DRC. He explained that the DRC continued the hearing for written evidence only. He read from the DRC minutes (p.25), which stated that the DRC was reluctant to re-open the hearing to allow Mr. Shepherd to answer questions because that it had to re-open the hearing to everyone else as well. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 November 17, 2009 - i --- Mayor Hoffman described how the aerial photo of the neighborhood (Slide 3) provided a more accurate representation of the development pattern in the whole neighborhood than the schematic did. Ms. Andreades explained that, because the Code section did not define the neighborhood and vicinity, she looked only at the homes on Phantom Bluff Court in considering the development pattern. Councilor Hennagin indicated that he interpreted the language of LOC 30.01.030(3) as meaning that if the proposed development was inconsistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity, the City could only prohibit the development if the inconsistency created a significant negative impact. THOSE IN SUPPPORT • Art DeRosia, 16789 Phantom Bluff Court He indicated that he has resided at this address for 25 of the 43 years he has lived in Lake Oswego. He reviewed the history of Mr. Sundeleaf's property from when Mr. Sundeleaf broke off lots for his daughters and sold off other lots. He observed that the lots did not meet City standards at the time that Mr. Sundeleaf divided up his property. He noted that when the Yearsleys' lot was made a legal lot, even though the lake access strip of land violated all the ordinances and the Lake Corporation rules for frontage on the lake, Mr. Puterbaugh did not oppose its legalization. He mentioned that the Yearsleys now objected to the legalization of Mr. Puterbaugh's lot on the grounds that it would obstruct their view. He referenced a depiction of the Yearsleys' house and the proposed Puterbaugh house. He acknowledged that an agreement between Mr. Glass and Mr. Puterbaugh to make the lot wider would also make the house wider, which could obstruct the view more. He argued that the picture showed that the house was quite narrow and would not obstruct the view very much. He pointed out that there were 11 lots on Phantom Bluff Court that did not meet the 25 feet on a public way requirement for a legal lot, but they did have a 30-foot easement off Phantom Bluff Court on to South Shore Blvd. He argued that the neighborhood was the Palisades neighborhood, while Phantom Bluff Court was only the vicinity, and not a neighborhood. He confirmed that Mr. Puterbaugh has owned the property for almost 40 years. During that time, Mr. Puterbaugh has paid property taxes, Lake Corporation dues, and contributed substantially to the development of sewer on Phantom Bluff Court. He argued that Mr. Puterbaugh should be allowed to build his house. THOSE IN OPPOSITION • Andrea Yearsley, 16586 Phantom Bluff Court She indicated that she owned Tax Lot 1800 and the property at 16470. She stated that the plat map incorrectly showed the property lines for Tax Lot 1800, which was adjacent to the Puterbaugh property. She described the lines as jogging in and out, which would affect the setbacks on Mr. Puterbaugh's property. Ms. Andreades indicated that the map in the Council packet correctly showed the jogs in the property line for Tax Lot 1800. Ms. Yearsley commented that she found it interesting that the people saying that this proposed development would not impact their view have never been on their property. She stated that their house was designed and constructed to take advantage of the view, with seven rooms looking directly into the view. She mentioned that none of the property owners surrounding Mr. Puterbaugh's property ever thought that there would be an issue because it was an illegal lot, which they were told was not a buildable parcel. She said that they were told originally that the house would be a single level home with a walkout basement underneath. However, the proposal was now for a two-story home with a walkout basement. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 November 17, 2009 - - - - - She argued that the shed on the Glass property was significantly lower than the proposed new house. She expressed her appreciation for the DRC doing a site visit, as it was difficult to see what the effect would be from the depictions and the plat map. She stated that much of Mr. Puterbaugh's site was very steep down to the lake. She contended that his building pad was much smaller than it looked on the rendition. She recalled that originally they had discussed with Mr. Puterbaugh the possibility of doing a lot line adjustment to straighten out one of the jogs and selling him a portion of their property to make it feasible for him to build a single level home, but it never went anywhere. She argued that the proposed development was clearly not similar to the rest of the Phantom Bluff Court neighborhood. She acknowledged that their street was in the general area of the Palisades neighborhood but contended that it was a unique neighborhood on a private road. She indicated that the two parcels to the northeast belonged to the owner of the last parcel on the end. She stated that the owner would probably not subdivide or build on those parcels in her lifetime. She stated that their biggest point was that the proposed development would severely affect their view and significantly decrease the value of their home by 20%. She reiterated that the proposed home was very different from the rest of the neighborhood. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Yearsley indicated to Mayor Hoffman that, while the view shown in the picture on p.127 appeared to look directly at the Glass house, that was not the actual case. She said that, while the Glass property was part of their view, the Puterbaugh property affected much of their direct view. She described the view shed to the Mayor, using the aerial photo. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that only eight of the properties participated in the sewer LID. She said that their house was on sewer and the house they owned next door was on septic. She confirmed that they would have to join the LID if they built a new house on the property next door. She said that she had known that Mr. Puterbaugh had participated in the LID, and therefore, were aware that Mr. Puterbaugh wanted to build on his lot. Ms. Yearsley indicated to Councilor Tierney that she thought the definition of the neighborhood was Phantom Bluff Court. She indicated to Councilor Olson that the people from whom they bought their lot, as well as the adjacent property owners at the time, Mr. Camerman and Mr. Richardson, all told them that Tax Lot 1902 was an illegal lot and could never be built on. She noted that Tax Lot 1800 was basically a pathway to get to the lake. She said that they did not follow up with the City until three years ago, at which time the City said that the lot would have to meet the lot criteria. She mentioned that at that time the lot was not buildable, as it lacked road access and sewer. In addition, there were questions about the lot being large enough to build on and meet the setback requirements. Councilor Tierney asked whether the proposed house on Tax Lot 1902 would obstruct or limit other neighbors' views. Ms. Yearsley indicated that it would not significantly affect the view of the house next door. She mentioned it possibly affecting the view of the home behind their home that fronted on South Shore. She stated that it would definitely have an adverse affect on the views of Mr. Smith and the Glasses, but neither one wanted to talk about it right now. REBUTTAL Mr. Shepherd pointed out that in applying criteria that used the word 'neighborhood,' one had to define what 'neighborhood' meant. He stated that he asked the DRC specifically what constituted the neighborhood, whether it was the Palisades neighborhood or the larger vicinity around Phantom Bluff Court. He explained that, in response to the DRC, he analyzed the views of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 November 17, 2009 properties along Phantom Bluff Court towards the lake, which were all obstructed views looking through or over trees, homes, garages, shrubbery, etc. He argued that the view that the Yearsleys currently enjoyed probably resulted from Mr. Puterbaugh clearing the groundcover off his property. He observed that an eight foot tall shrub at the top of the ridgeline would come close to blocking the view. He cited a transcript of the DRC minutes in contending that, at the hearing, the DRC never focused on the neighborhood development pattern, regardless of what the findings said. He stated that they also did not focus on the consistency of the single-family development on the Puterbaugh property with the tiered single-family development pattern of the neighborhood and all along the lakeside. He pointed out that they were not saying that they were not going to impact the Yearsleys' view. Any residential development on the Puterbaugh property would slightly impact their view. He emphasized that that was why the applicant proposed an extensive list of mitigating conditions that would otherwise not apply to the application. He stated that the question under the standard that the Council needed to answer was whether the impact to the Yearsleys' view was consistent with the impacts to the views experienced by others in the neighborhood. He argued that the answer was clearly 'yes.' He said that there was no evidence to the contrary. He noted the two letters in support of the Puterbaughs from other Phantom Bluff Court residents included in the packet, and the two other neighbors who testified orally at the DRC saying that this proposed development was consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. He contended that this was an issue of equity and fairness, because if the Council denied this application, then his client would not have a legal lot that he could sell under Oregon law; effectively, he would have nothing. He questioned whether Mr. Puterbaugh could even cut down a tree because in order to do so, one had to be subject to the City Code. However, only legal lots were regulated under the City Code. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh was caught in the middle, a situation that this application process was designed to address. He pointed out that the installation of the sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements through the LID allowed his client to build on his property. He mentioned that his client would have built in 1972 but right after he bought the property, the City imposed a moratorium on septic systems in this area, and he could not do so. In 1991, Mr. Puterbaugh tried to legalize the lot, but for some reason out of his control, his plat was not finally recorded. He noted that Mr. Glass legalized his lot three years ago and now could do whatever he wanted to on his property, subject to the Lake Oswego Code. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh just wanted the same rights as all the Phantom Bluff Court residents enjoyed, including the Yearsleys. He indicated that Mr. Puterbaugh wanted to build a home there in which to live out his life. This application represented his opportunity to do so. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Olson asked for more information on the failure to file the plat. Mr. Shepherd said that he searched the City records but could find no records or staff reports from the time documenting the application, other than the City knew that the application process was filed and approved. He explained that the 1991 application involved Tax Lots 1900, 1905 and 1902. The other property owners led the application and Mr. Puterbaugh had just gone along for the ride. He stated that Mr. Puterbaugh did not know why the property owner representatives filed none of the plats. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 9:05 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 November 17, 2009 COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Moncrieff referenced Ms. Yearsley's statement that the neighborhood consisted of Phantom Bluff Court. She noted that four of the neighbors supported Mr. Puterbaugh's proposal. She commented that she has seen no evidence of a significant negative impact on the neighborhood for any of the factors listed in the Code section, including views. She indicated that she believed that the single-family development on a residential lot was consistent with the existing neighborhood. She stated that she would vote to reverse the DRC decision. Councilor Hennagin commented that he found these kinds of neighbor versus neighbor issues the most difficult issues faced by the Council because, no matter what the Council decided, it would have an adverse impact on one of the residents. He pointed out that, in this quasi-judicial role, the Council had to apply the ordinance as written, and not decide based upon who would be the most adversely impacted. He pointed out that the ordinance required the Council to allow the legal creation of a lot unless it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of the factors listed. He commented that there was no evidence that the lot legalization would have a negative impact on scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy or buffers (although the language was not clear on what 'buffers' meant). He mentioned the contention that it would obstruct views, which brought into play the requirement to consider the consistency of the development with the existing development pattern along Phantom Bluff Court. He commented that, in order to conclude that the development was out of place, he would have to find that the home would be substantially larger than the other homes in the area. He stated that he could not find that the obstruction of view created by the development represented a significant negative impact. Therefore, he would vote in favor of the appeal. Councilor Tierney concurred with reversing the DRC decision but with the imposition of conditions to mitigate the acknowledged negative impact. He spoke to imposing the two conditions recommended by staff(pp. 112-113) and the voluntary conditions proposed by the applicant and listed on p. 4 of Mr. Shepherd's November 13, 2009, letter(Exhibit F-15). Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Hennagin that it was a matter of following the Code, and not a matter of how long the Puterbaughs have paid taxes or how much they have invested. She agreed that there was a negative impact on the Yearsleys, yet the question came down to the Council's interpretation of significant negative impact. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that the Council should impose conditions to mitigate the impact. She suggested revising the language of the fourth bullet on p.4 of Mr. Shepherd's letter to read "building a home as low as possible on the property." She referenced the similar language found in the next bullet of"as much as practicable." She spoke to finding the happy medium between building as low as possible on the property but not too close to the cliff so as to cause erosion and slide problems. Councilor Olson agreed to Mayor Hoffman's suggestion of"building as low as practicable." Councilor Johnson concurred with the other Councilors' comments. She said that she was satisfied that the lot met the Code requirements for becoming legal. She supported including the conditions. Mayor Hoffman said that he also agreed with the previous comments in terms of the Code criteria, the evidence before the Council, and the difficult position of the Council as a quasi-judicial hearings body. Ms. Andreades reviewed her understanding of the conditions of approval desired by the Council. The future structure would fit within the building envelope framed by a shed roof with a maximum height of 35 feet and sloping consistently to approximately 24 feet. The future garage would not exceed the maximum height of approximately 13 feet. The applicant would not be allowed to use City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 November 17, 2009 the height exception allowed by the Code. The house will be built as low as practicable on the property. Councilor Tierney noted that Mr. Shepherd used 12 feet for the garage height. Mr. Powell asked clarifying questions regarding the four bullets on p.4 of Mr. Shepherd's letter. He asked, with respect to the first bullet, whether the Council meant to suggest limiting the house to two stories with a basement. He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the maximum height should do the same thing, but he wanted to clarify whether the number of stories was an issue for the Council. If not, then the first bullet was unnecessary because the Council addressed the issue elsewhere with the height limitation. He indicated that he heard consensus that the first bullet was unnecessary. He noted that limiting the maximum height and allowing no height exception were clear in the next bullet. The Council indicated that the conclusion that the result would be half a story above visual grade was not a requirement. Mr. Powell concurred with Councilor Tierney that the 12 foot height limit for the garage trumped the height recommended by staff. The Council agreed that the height limitations addressed the statement about the garage structure being slightly taller than the home. Mr. Powell noted the condition to build the home as low as practicable on the property and into the hillside as much as practicable. Mr. Powell asked whether building the home with a flat sloping roof with a low side to the east was part of the condition. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that using the staff recommendation, with the addition of the roof sloping to the east, eliminated any reason for the last bullet. Ms. Andreades noted that all the other conditions were part of the staff report. Councilor Johnson moved to reverse the DRC's decision and approve the application with the conditions as outlined by the applicant on page 4 and staff on pages 12 and 13, as modified in the Council deliberations. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' [6-0] Mr. Powell announced that this was a tentative decision by the Council, which would be made final upon adoption of findings, conclusions, and order at the December 15, 2009, hearing. He noted for the record that the applicant agreed to an extension of the 120-day rule to December 15 for adoption of the final findings. Mayor Hoffman announced that the Council would continue the Allied Waste rate increase request to another date in the interests of time. 7.2 Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits. STAFF REPORT Ms. Papadopoulos noted that Tim Kraft from OTAK was present. She discussed the realities behind surface water management, starting with the 123 million gallons of rain that fell in Lake Oswego in a year, which, if converted to fuel, would be sufficient to fuel a fleet of 175,000 cars for one year. She said that most of the water either soaked into the ground or evaporated or ran off into the nearest creek, lake, or river without causing any issues, which was the natural way that it should work. She mentioned that the first efforts of storm water management focused around flooding and protecting the structures built by humans that interfered with this natural process. She noted that recently communities have come to understand that the water picked up pollutants when it hit the ground and carried those pollutants into the water system through storm water runoff. She stated City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 November 17, 2009 that humans have severely impaired streams through the detrimental pollutants carried into them by storm water. She discussed the two main aspects faced by the City: water quality and storm water management. She indicated that the City could have a plan ranging from a 'Cadillac' program to something moderate to something minimal. She commented that the City would never have enough money to do the whole job. Whatever the plan, there would always be more to do. She mentioned that the City's surface water fees covered the program costs. She explained that staff went through a three-year master planning process to determine the priorities and program level desired by the community, as well as researching technological advances, current science, and environmental and regulatory issues. She described the plan before the Council tonight as a moderate plan. She pointed out that, since the community's fees supported the plan, it was important that the plan reflect what people were interested in. She mentioned hearing two voices during their public outreach effort: a minority voice of passionate and educated people who want the City to do a lot, and a majority voice of people interested in the localized flooding issues occurring in their neighborhoods. She indicated that staff developed a moderate plan in response to both voices. She mentioned that staff has become aware in the last few months that there might be the beginnings of community support to do more. She speculated that, within the next five years, the City might have sufficient public support to supplement this plan with a watershed plan. Mayor Hoffman summarized Ms. Papadopoulos's comment, as a watershed plan might be the next logical step for the City to take. He speculated that it might be possible to determine the scope and cost of such a plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Ms. Papadopoulos clarified that it would be a logical step if there were community support. She indicated that she could not say whether it would make the most sense to do it within the Comprehensive Plan, although it certainly tied into the Plan. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Mr. Kraft indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the difference between a watershed plan and the Clean Streams Plan was that the Clean Streams Plan was broader, in that it took into account regulatory programs, design standards for development, etc. He explained that a watershed plan had a tighter focus, in that it looked at the factors in a particular watershed that caused deterioration and sought to address those factors through specific projects in that watershed. Mr. Kraft indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a watershed delineation would probably take into account the entire area drained by Lost Dog Creek or by Springbrook Creek. Councilor Hennagin referenced Audrey Mattison's letter reporting her observation of increased erosion in the ravine next to her property on Glen Eagles Road, which might possibly be due to development. He asked what affect climate change had on increasing rainfall. He mentioned his own observations of seeing heavier downpours today than he saw a decade ago. Mr. Kraft said that he could not speak to the weather and increased rainfall amounts, but he did know that increased rainfall velocities and the amount of water getting into the creeks contributed to erosion. Ms. Papadopoulos mentioned that the City hired a hydrologist as part of the Clean Streams Plan work in order to answer that very question. She reported that the hydrologist did not find a significant difference in rainfall amounts over long periods of time. Councilor Tierney asked if the plan recommended using pervious surfaces, removing gutters from residential units, or opening up culverts (as suggested in the Lake Corporation report). Mr. Kraft said that the plan had a recommendation to disconnect downspouts where applicable in the city, but not a recommendation to open up culverts. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the capital projects section, in addressing culvert replacements, spoke of determining whether it would be feasible to open up the culvert rather than simply replacing it. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 November 17, 2009 Mr. Kraft confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that Section 6, Best Management Practices, discussed these kinds of issues. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to the Mayor that staff would look at low impact development approaches and best management practices whenever one of the listed capital improvement projects rose to the top for financing. She commented that with the ever- changing technology in surface water management, whatever solution they thought of today would likely change three years from now. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. THOSE IN SUPPORT • Andrew Harris, 2270 Arbor Drive, West Linn He distributed copies of his comments. He recalled that, as an employee of the City for 27 years (1977 to 2005), he worked on preparing the original Comprehensive Plan and its policies, as well as developing the development standards for wetlands, streams, and drainage. He mentioned his work as project manager for 29 stream restoration projects in the City. He referenced his report, Healthy Streams and Watershed Plan, which went into greater detail than his comments. He expressed his appreciation for the work and effort that went into creating the Clean Stream Plan. He indicated that, while he supported what the Plan was trying to do in addressing water quality issues and using LIDA measures, the Plan was only a significant piece of the puzzle, and not the whole puzzle. He presented five paradigms that he identified in the Plan and gave suggestions for new paradigms that would lead the City in the direction of a watershed plan. He indicated that the first paradigm in the Plan was that the science did not support doing stream restoration. He stated that there was an approved scientific method called the geomorphic approach to natural channel design that has been applied throughout the country for a decade with success. He suggested a new paradigm that acknowledged that there were ways to create effective stream restoration projects. He indicated that the second paradigm in the plan was that slowing run off and flow rates would eventually lead to fixing stream erosion problems. He acknowledged that that was partially true. He described how stream erosion destroyed the natural flood storage and flood plain protection functions of a stream. He cited a study by Ben Johnson, PSU graduate student, on Lost Dog Creek, in which Mr. Johnson quantified and verified that the dominant source of sediment and phosphorous pollution in the city came from stream channel erosion, as opposed to coming from the entire watershed. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mayor Hoffman asked if the Plan included stream restoration projects on the capital project list, or if that type of project lay outside the purview of the plan. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the Plan did not include those projects at this time, as staff had felt it more important to concentrate the City's limited resources on stream inputs and eroding forces stabilization before looking into restoration projects Mayor Hoffman acknowledged that the City had a history of doing stream restoration projects in the past, such as in Springbrook Park by the Hunt Club and on Lost Dog Creek. Mr. Harris noted another paradigm in the Plan of not working on private property. He argued that the City needed to work on private property. He indicated that there were many examples of private property owners willing to cooperate with the City once they understood what was going on. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 November 17, 2009 He referenced the Plan paradigm that stream restoration was too expensive. He mentioned the studies cited in his comments that found stream restoration as the most cost effective way of removing sediment and phosphorous of all possible measures the City could take. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that nowhere in the Plan did staff say that stream restoration cost too much. Mayor Hoffman noted that the Plan did encourage stream restoration on private property through the grant program. Councilor Olson thanked Mr. Harris for the report he prepared for the Lake Corporation, which she had found very helpful. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He indicated that, given the City's focus on sustainability and the Lake Corporation concerns, he could see the Plan as the foundation for moving to the next step. Mr. Harris stated that his testimony supported the Plan and suggested a future direction. Mr. Harris concurred with Councilor Tierney that the City had a history of trying to do stream restoration in a way that incorporated both the actual stream restoration and some secondary measures. He argued that they could not wait to take the Plan's sequential approach and do everything in the Plan before doing the other leg of the stool, which was the in channel measures. They needed to do the measures simultaneously. Mayor Hoffman recalled the Springbrook Creek restoration projects next to the Hunt Club and at Ruth Pennington Park. He summarized Councilor Tierney and Mr. Harris' comments as, while the Clean Streams Plan was necessary, the City could not sit back with its adoption and say, "We're done," Councilor Tierney expressed his concern that the Plan did not take a more comprehensive look at the situation and did not attack a common problem in an integrated way. Ms. Papadopoulos reiterated that what staff heard from the public did not secure sufficient financial support to do a high-end plan. She indicated that, in being thoughtful about where to employ the funds, staff decided that the most appropriate starting point was to work on the erosion inputs and wait until the community was ready to support the next step. She described the next step as expensive and having a significant impact on things. Councilor Tierney commented that, while he appreciated that there was not a clear demarcation between policy and administration, he thought that community support could be expressed to the elected members of the community, who would make those decisions. He acknowledged the staff public outreach effort and the need to establish community support, but noted that he has been expressing the other information and opinions for some time. • Jeff Ward, 26001 NW Hwy 47, Buxton, OR, General Manager, Lake Oswego Corporation He thanked the Council and staff for their vigilance in addressing natural resources in Lake Oswego. He discussed the Lake Corporation's interest in the watershed. He noted the Corporation's long history in dealing with the sedimentation and phosphorus deposited in the lake from the watershed. He mentioned dealing with sedimentation through dredging and the algae blooms caused by the phosphorus through algaecide. He indicated that more recently the Corporation has looked at the watershed to see where the phosphorous came from. He referenced Ben Johnson's master thesis, which found that the major source of phosphorus entering Lost Dog Creek came from stream bank erosion because the ground levels of phosphorus in this area were so high. He applauded the Plan and all its proposed capital projects. He concurred with Councilor Tierney about doing a comprehensive plan. He indicated that Corporation supported the proposed inclusion of low impact development standards in the Code, as well as taking measures to slow down and decrease the flow into the conveyance systems. He referenced the description in the Plan introduction of the MS4 p rmit as a management plan and the Clean Streams Plan as a master plan. He argued that what they were trying to do was to City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 November 17, 2009 accomplish what a watershed naturally accomplished, and therefore, they needed a comprehensive view. He mentioned the Corporation's desire to see an overall vision and step-by- step goals to accomplish that vision, which did not worry about the MS4 regulatory requirements because the City was moving forward in accomplishing all of those requirements. He spoke of the Corporation's support of a strong and effective public outreach program (including some way to motivate people to disconnect downspouts), a phosphorus ban, and low impact development as the first option in all projects, new development, and redevelopment. THOSE IN OPPOSITION • Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road She indicated that her observations and comments were more an advocacy for a subject not addressed in the Plan than in opposition to the total Plan. She said that she supported the comments by Jonathan Snell and the paper Healthy Streams and Watersheds by Andrew Harris (Harris Stream Services) and Martha Mitchell (Clear Water West), which provided specific strategies and actions She referenced her background as a volunteer partnering with the City in developing a management plan and supporting a friends group for Springbrook Park, as well as serving on the Clean Streams sounding board. She argued that her example of erosion was likely representative of what was occurring unchecked in most ravines, swales, and low-lying areas throughout Lake Oswego. She said that the ravine bordering her property indicated that infiltration had worked in the past, in that it had remained unchanged for 40 years. She cited the second wave of urbanization impacts as resulting in a two-foot deep incised channel eroding at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 inches annually. She described the change from seasonally soggy ground to a rapid flowing muddy water stream that transported material as big as her fist down hill to Springbrook Creek, which was the most prominent of the natural channels in Lake Oswego conveying water to the lakes and rivers (per the City's MS4 permit). She contended that the interdependence of this small 26-acre watershed was relevant to the degradation of stream function. She described it as an active demonstration of existing surface water conditions resulting in impaired streams through stream bank erosion and phosphorous transmission. She asked when the City intended to address impaired stream conditions, as the 10- year Clean Streams Plan did not address them. She spoke in support of the community-wide programs and practices proposed by the Sustainability and Natural Resources Advisory Boards. She expressed her hope that the City would extend the accompanying grants to include stream restoration, similar to the City-approved resource enhancement project underway through the efforts of the Uplands neighbors. She stated that the Plan acknowledged but did not address impervious surfaces as the source of increased surface water flows and flow rates. She contended that it was the City's responsibility to regulate the flows and the citizens' responsibility to implement the regulations. She argued that to do otherwise implied that the protection of natural resources and the improvement of water quality were not the perceived quality of life values long ascribed to Lake Oswego residents. • Jonathan Snell, 3250 Upper Drive, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Chair He expressed his amazement that he opposed the surface water master plan that took three years to produce at an early cost estimate of$400,000, given that he was an advocate for surface water management, riparian corridors, water quality, and aquatic life. He mentioned that, as a former member of the NRAB, he has been involved with this process since before the Plan process began. He stated that the City needed to do better. He contended that the limited funds available made it imperative that they take a comprehensive, watershed approach, as opposed to doing a surface City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 November 17, 2009 water management plan. In arguing for using a comprehensive approach to deal with channel erosion (resulting from hydraulic alteration), which was the primary source of pollutant loading, he used an analogy of the folly of upgrading windows to more panes if one did not have insulation in the ceiling. He noted that Mr. Harris' report discussed this issue but the Plan did not attempt to quantify the process. He commented that, while he was an advocate for riparian resource management, he was also an advocate for good fiduciary management of the surface water management fee paid by Lake Oswego residents. He contended that, in order to manage the fee effectively, the City needed to look at the whole picture and identify the locations of the biggest problems. He indicated that he would like to see a 'can do' attitude for ways to redo hydraulic connectivity, slow water down, manage the riparian corridors, increase channel roughness, and restore healthy stream functions. He held that the best evidence that the City could do that in the future was that it has done so in the past. He described the Plan as anti-stream restoration. He acknowledged that the Plan's different approach had merit, in that the City needed to take action in the upper part of the watershed as well, but he emphasized the importance of taking action in the entire watershed. He commented that the statement in the Executive Summary stating that the community did not support a watershed-based approach at this time sounded like a policy statement to him. He expressed his doubt that the Council made that decision. He asked whether the Council was willing to look at the real problem and do a searching inventory of the system. He indicated that he perceived the Plan as shutting the door on some cost-effective measures that the City could take. He mentioned informing the City earlier that the soil permeabilities in the Boones Ferry and First Addition areas, where the two biggest capital improvement projects were scheduled, were fairly good. He suggested modifying Figure 1 in the Plan to represent soil permeability as much as the 1992 plan did. He commented that the City doing a plan in 1968 and updating it in 1992 and 2008 told him that it would be twenty years before this opportunity came around again. He contrasted a map from the 1992 plan that indicated the soil permeabilities with the equivalent map from the Clean Streams Plan, which provided no such information. He presented his specific recommendations. He asked the Council to commit to considering hydraulic connectivity in the CIP projects and to the evaluation of alternatives that reduced hydraulic connectivity. He contended that many of the CIP projects have increased hydraulic connectivity, which made the water run off faster. He asked the Council to commit to outreach and education programs, including the concept that how fast the water left the property was a problem. He contended that people understood that it was not a good idea to dump poison in the water, but they did not understand that using downspouts to channel water through pipes to the edge of their property was destructive of the resource. He asked that staff modify Figure 4.1 to represent the soil infiltration capacities as mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. He asked the Council to commit to the evaluation of potential continued use of UlCs (underground interjection controls, or drains, sumps) prior to abandoning the idea of their continued or expanded use. He acknowledged the existence of regulations but argued for a systematic evaluation to inform the decision to comply with regulations, rather than being totally controlled by regulations. He asked the Council to commit to consideration of the role of stream channel erosion in TMDL pollutant loading. He mentioned his meeting with staff to ask staff to use the City's existing information to determine the current phosphorous loading levels. He said that staff told him that they lacked sufficient information, which did not make sense to him because the City has been doing water sampling for 17 years. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 November 17, 2009 He pointed out that people only protected those resources that they valued, but they only valued what they were aware of. He argued that if the people were not aware of the adverse impacts that they created on the resource, then the resource was negatively impacted. He contended that people were not aware that what they thought was okay to do was destructive to the resource. He stated his belief that the values of this community would support a watershed-based approach. He held that this community had the willingness to look at its part in contributing to the problems (the pollutant loading and the degradation of the resource) and to modify its actions to some degree to help address the problem. He commented that it was the role of elected officials to make decisions regarding the community values. He encouraged the Council to consider his specific recommendations and to decide which, if any, staff should incorporate into the plan. He asked the Council not to approve the plan in its current form. THOSE NEUTRAL • Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way She asked for a clear and objective reason why Oswego Lake was excluded from the area of jurisdiction of the surface water utility (p. 19). She asked whether the people in the lake basin and lakefront property owners contributed to the utility fee for surface water management. She asked that it be clearly stated for the record whether stream restoration projects on private property would be voluntary or mandatory on the part of the owner. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the statements on p. 19 simply summarized LOC 38.24. She did not know why the Code section excluded the lake. She stated that, as far as she knew, everyone in Lake Oswego paid a surface water fee. She clarified that any projects in the Plan were voluntary. • Mark Rosenkrantz, 6329 SE 43`d Avenue, Portland, Water Resources Specialist, Lake Oswego Corporation He mentioned that he saw no way in the Plan to measure its success, nor any specific guidance for staff to follow in implementing any of the Plan programs. He gave an example of the suggestion to disconnect downspouts, which lacked a timeline for implementation. He noted another example of no steps in the plan for how to achieve a phosphorous free fertilizer ban. He observed that these were examples of actions to stop the water at the source, per the plan's statement that it was more cost effective to stop pollutants at the source than to try to mitigate them after they were in the system. He commented that infiltrating water close to its source where possible meant better success in restoring the streams. In addition, removing phosphorous inputs from the watershed might mean more success in removing phosphorous from the lake. He said that he would like to see guidance in the Plan for how the community would carry out the projects (including a timeline), as well as guidance on how to measure the Plan's success. He questioned how they could make changes to this living document over time if they did not know whether the programs were successful or not. Mr. Rosenkrantz indicated to Councilor Olson that, several years ago before phosphorous-free fertilizer became widely available, the Corporation formulated its own fertilizer and made it available to lake property owners. He mentioned the Corporation's encouragement to the residents to use phosphorous-free fertilizer and not to sweep lawn clippings into the lake. Councilor Olson asked if the Lake Corporation shareholders could vote to mandate themselves not to use phosphorous fertilizer. Mr. Ward indicated that that would be a Board decision. • Dian Ca sidy, 18280 Indian Cr ek Driv City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 November 17, 2009 She asked for a more complete answer to Ms. Jones' question regarding the exclusion of the lake. Mr. Powell stated his understanding of the question as why did the Executive Summary mention the exclusion of Oswego Lake from some of the Plan provisions. He explained that the Code section summarized in the Executive Summary described the surface water utility facilities owned by the City, as opposed to describing the surface water management system, which included all natural and manmade facilities utilized by the surface water utility to regulate the quantity and quality of surface water. He speculated that the Code specifically excluded the lake in its list of City-owned facilities in order to clarify that the City, even though it owned some lakefront property, was not claiming ownership of the lake as an interest in a water body for surface water utility purposes. Ms. Cassidy suggested that the Council considering clarifying that item before it approved the plan. She indicated that she wanted to make sure that all of the water in Lake Oswego, including the lake, was covered by the Plan. She expressed her concern that the plan might suggest disconnecting downspouts as a one size fits all solution. She pointed out that doing so on hillside properties might cause erosion problems. She mentioned that her lot, as the low lot in the neighborhood, would flood if her higher elevation neighbors disconnected their downspouts that took the water out to the street, which was the only other place for the water to go. She spoke to the importance of applying these conditions site-by-site and neighborhood-by- neighborhood. She mentioned that she lived in Bryant Woods behind the Waluga and Bryant schools. She indicated that the school fields had an underlying gushy gray clay soil and a water table that would be at the surface in a couple of weeks if this current rain continued. She stated that the ground could not take any more water. She said that she applauded using onsite water infiltration where practical. However, not all properties, such as hers, were suited to that method. She spoke of properly respecting everyone's property. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Olson asked for a better explanation and some examples of the City maintaining storm water facilities on private property (p. ES-5, p. 109). Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that the City required many properties to provide storm water facilities for surface water management as a condition of development. She mentioned that many property owners, even though they knew of the need to maintain the facilities, did not do so. She explained that staff was looking at developing a stronger enforcement mechanism. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Councilor Olson that this section referred primarily to multiple lot facilities, such as those managed by HOAs, but it could refer to a facility on an individual lot. Mr. Gilbey indicated to Councilor Olson that an individual property typically had a catch basin in a low-lying driveway to detain sediment before discharging it to a canal or a stream. He said that if the City began implementing more low impact development, staff would likely require rain gardens. He described how rain gardens deteriorated over time if left alone. He mentioned a need for a regulation to insure the proper maintenance and operation of rain gardens. He said that typically the majority of storm water treatment facilities were large swales or vegetation retention areas owned by an HOA. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated Councilor Tierney that, if he voted for the Plan, he would be committing the City to pursuing the Plan recommendations and implementing them where and if feasible, and if supported by the Council. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 November 17, 2009 She clarified to the Councilor that the reference to three FTEs spoke of the need for additional staff resources to carry out the volume of work,in the plan. She explained that adopting the plan adopted the overall program and approved a change in fees to support the resources needed to accomplish the plan, in whatever form those resources took. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that, while he had spoken to the Councilor about generic staff resources last night, it did come back to FTEs. He gave an example of increasing street sweeping. If the City did more street sweeping, then he needed to hire a body to come in and do that work. Councilor Tierney stated that the FTEs were illustrative of one of the challenges that he found with the whole plan, namely that it lacked specific guidance, as Mr. Rosenkrantz and Mr. Snell pointed out. He indicated that he was confused about exactly this plan did in terms of implementing on the ground the various recommendations it contained. He agreed that it also lacked measurable outcomes, which he also found troubling. Ms. Papadopoulos explained that part of the dilemma was that there were many recommendations in that Plan that staff could not implement in isolation. Many of them also required Council decisions. She gave an example of impervious surfaces. The reduction of impervious surfaces would have a significant impact on the development codes, which the city might or might not be ready to do. She described the plan as more about the way that staff thought the City should go. As staff began laying out each of the tracks in the process, the Council would be heavily involved in deciding whether the recommendation was something that the City should do politically, financially, or otherwise. She explained that this was common in master plans, in that they set a course, but once they got into it, there might be different choices made. She commented that that was a depth that staff could not reach at this point. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney's comments. She indicated that she found the Plan a frustrating document because she would like it to be stronger with more teeth, yet she understood the difficulty. She mentioned asking a developer friend of hers, who had asked that the Council make the Plan as strong as possible, whether he wanted the Code to mandate the use of pervious surfaces. He could not answer the question, indicating the difficulty involved with these issues. She said that, if it were practicable, she would like staff to integrate Mr. Harris' paradigms and Mr. Snell's recommendations into the document. She spoke to the importance of moving forward and seriously considering issues, such as pervious surfaces. She recalled that the Palisades Neighborhood Association had recommended in its neighborhood plan that all new streets and sidewalks use pervious surfaces, but the last Council rejected the recommendation because it was too expensive to implement. She observed that this was a balancing act. Councilor Hennagin indicated that, to some degree, he concurred with Councilor Tierney and Moncrieff's comments. He expressed his concern that this expensive study might end up sitting on a shelf, given that the Maintenance Director said that staff did not know what it could do or how far it could go with the document. He questioned whether the City had sufficient money at this time to do anything with it anyway. He asked, if the objective was to take incremental steps to achieve the Plan over a long period of time, why staff did not include everything that people said was missing. He asked why not go as far as they could and lay out the entire objective, knowing that they would only achieve it incrementally. He stated his concern that the plan did not take into account all the things that the City wanted to achieve with clean streams. He commented that he was uncertain as to whether he should vote for a partial document or whether the Council should table it for later re-consideration. Councilor Johnson observed that the recommendations in the report kept coming back to the issue of policy questions that needed to be answered. She suggested that the Council approve the plan tonight as a first step and set a timeline for incorporating some of the watershed techniques. She argued that if they wanted to help the streams in the watershed, then they needed some place City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 November 17, 2009 from which to work. She spoke of the Plan helping the City obtain grant monies in the future. She commented that, since this was a dynamic document anyway, the Council could look at changing it later. Councilor Olson thanked all the staff and the advisory and work committees that worked on the plan. She said that the Plan helped her tremendously, and she appreciated the hours of staff and volunteer effort that went into it. She called out several suggestions in Mr. Harris' report for low cost actions that the City could take now, such as installing rain gardens in the West End Building parking lot. She concurred with Mr. Harris that private property owners could be effective stewards of streams on their properties. She spoke of bringing private property owners into the discussion. She commented that she had mixed feelings regarding the plan because, while she wanted to do much of the Plan, she was greatly concerned about the three FTEs and raising fees once again. She mentioned several of the fees that the Council has raised since she took office. She acknowledged that this was the most modest rate increase the Council has seen, but she was tired of raising fees. She asked for clarification on the street sweeping reduction in Option 3 of the funding plan, due to the loss of a part-time retired staff person. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that there was money in the budget to hire a replacement, but it was very difficult to find someone skilled in driving these expensive and finicky machines. She explained that she would not be surprised if the retired street sweeper who has been working during the fall and winter seasons stopped coming in in the next couple of years. Ms. Papadopoulos explained to Councilor Olson that the two program managers listed in Option 5 referred to needing two bodies' worth of work, one body to manage the capital programs, and another body to manage a more substantial education and outreach program and to administer the two proposed grant programs. She indicated that they did not have sufficient staff to do these tasks effectively, given the staff workload. Mayor Hoffman commented that he heard loud and clear tonight that this Plan did not go far enough. It did not address the stream restoration and watershed issues raised by the Lake Corporation, Mr. Snell, and others. He acknowledged that that all took money, but he shared Councilor Olson's concern about constantly raising fees. Still, if they agreed that it was a problem that needed fixing, then they would have to spend time and money to do it. He speculated that 90% of the community's streams were on private lands, which necessitated the outreach and education program spoken of by many tonight. He mentioned also hearing loud and clear that the Council wanted a date specific for staff to come back and talk about the concerns raised by Mr. Snell and Ms. Mattison regarding streams. He commented that he did not think that a public hearing was an appropriate venue to wordsmith a $500,000 document. He agreed with having a discussion during goal setting about developing a process to create a supplement to the Plan, a process that involved in-depth discussions with experts and interested citizens about how to move forward from the foundation of the Plan. Councilor Johnson moved Resolution 09-68, adopting the Clean Streams Plan, and then discussing it at goal setting. Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that the Council had sufficiently discussed the adoption of the fees. Councilor Tierney mentioned that he also appreciated all the work that went into the Plan. He noted that he expressed his concerns with the document, which started fundamentally with the question of what was a master plan. He commented that part of the equation was how they were spending their money, and what was the best way to be spending their money. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 November 17, 2009 He described this master plan as a compendium of a lot of interesting things, as opposed to a document providing policy questions and direction. He questioned whether the Plan accomplished what he thought the Council needed to have in order to make decisions, which might be indicative of why there was no second for the motion. Councilor Hennagin asked if staff had a specific plan for educating the public about the issues and advantages of appropriate actions, such as not directing downspouts into the streets. He asked if staff would be able to move ahead if Council adopted the plan. Ms. Papadopoulos directed the Councilor to Section 7, p. 53, where staff outlined the components of the expanded education and outreach program. She confirmed to the Councilor that, unless they obtained another FTE or cut back on other work to free up other staff, they could not move forward with the expanded program. She mentioned that the push back they got from staff when they first tried expanding the program because staff was overwhelmed with its existing workload. Mr. McIntyre indicated that, in the end, the public outreach and education component would be run out of Public Affairs, which was in his office. He said that the City needed either an in-house technical expert who could do the educating, similar to Kevin McCaleb's work with water conservation, or it needed to hire an outside group with the credibility, background and ability to explain these issues in layman's terms to come in and do the work. Councilor Hennagin commented that he was not willing to spend this much taxpayer money on the document and not at least adopt it. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. Ms. Papadopoulos confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the resolution called for Option 5 and a 50- cent fee increase per month for the first year (Section 12, p. 75). She clarified that the fee increase each year for the next three years was 7% a year. Mayor Hoffman asked what the consequence was of not adopting the Clean Streams Plan. Mr. McIntyre said that the consequence was that the Plan did not pass, which left the choice of staff bringing the Plan back for future Council discussion of the issues of concern, or staff chilling the document. He pointed out that the more time the Council and staff spent on the document, the more expensive it became. He commented that, while that was not a reason to make a decision one-way or the other, the fact was that staff completed this plan a year ago. He stated his strong opinion that if the Council did not want to do it, then it should not do it, and let staff move on to something else. He observed that three years was a long time to discuss clean streams, even though it was an important topic and one in which the City has invested time and money. He acknowledged the concerns regarding its lack of specificity. He indicated that, to the extent that staff could create specificity as they moved forward, they would do so. He commented that at some point, the Council needed to let staff focus on other topics because the Council had a full agenda. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Johnson voting `aye.' Councilors Olson and Tierney voted 'no.' [4-2] 8. REPORTS 8.1 Personal Services Contract to Provide Program Management, Construction Management and Permitting Services Relating to the Lake Oswego-Tigard Wat r Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year 2009-10 Mr. Komarek referenced his lengthy Council report regarding this staff request to award this contract to Brown & Caldwell in the amount of$4,419,060. He mentioned the history of the water supply relationship between Lake Oswego and Tigard, beginning in the mid-1990s with negotiations on a long-term water sales agreement that fell through and picking back up again in City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 November 17, 2009 2005 with discussions that led to the August 2008 Joint Water Supply IGA between the two cities to expand Lake Oswego's water supply system. He indicated that this was another step in the implementation plan worked on by the staff Technical Committee and the elected official Oversight Committee. He explained that Lake Oswego had insufficient engineering staff resources to undertake a plan of this complexity, magnitude, and duration. Therefore, the Technical Committee brought a recommendation to the Oversight Committee to deliver the project using a program manager-type of delivery method. He described the competitive bid and qualifications process that staff undertook upon the Oversight Committee agreeing with the staff recommendation. He indicated that Brown & Caldwell ranked number one at the end of the process. Staff then asked for fee estimates from the two top ranked firms. He explained that the apparent significant difference in fee estimates from the two companies was only an appearance, when analyzed upon an equivalent range of services. He indicated that staff negotiated the final scope and fee with Brown & Caldwell, as represented in tonight's report. He reiterated that it was for services through the end of this fiscal year, June 30, 2010. He reviewed the checks and balances included in the contract, as discussed in the report, including annual reviews. He recommended that the Council award the contract to Brown & Caldwell. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Tigard would pay 57% of the total fee (around $2.5 million) with Lake Oswego's share coming in at a little over $1.8 million. Councilor Tierney mentioned that part of the allocation included Tigard paying Lake Oswego as the program manager for the project. Mr. Komarek confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that these allocation percentages would continue throughout the process. Mr. Komarek mentioned that staff would return to Council in January with a supplemental budget request recognizing this additional expense, the additional revenue from Tigard, and the additional overall cost for the adopted budget for this work. Councilor Tierney mentioned that the Oversight Committee voted affirmatively on the proposal. Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Technical Committee was obligated to bring this recommendation to the Oversight Committee for its review and concurrence before bringing it to the two City Councils. Mayor Hoffman noted that Councilors Tierney and Johnson were Lake Oswego's representatives on the Oversight Committee. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Tigard participated in the bid assessments with two representatives on the committee. Councilor Tierney moved to award a personal services contract to Brown & Caldwell in the amount of$4, 419,060.00 to provide program management, construction management, and permitting services through FY 2009/2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." [6-0] 8.2 Allied Waste Rate Increase Request This item was continued to another meeting. 9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 November 17, 2009 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 10.2 City Attorney 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn 6hristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 0 arch 23 10 Jack . offman, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 November 17, 2009