HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-12-19
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 19, 2017
1.CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.on
December 19, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
2.ROLL CALL
Present:Mayor Studebakerand CouncilorsLaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz,
andGudman
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney;Anne-Marie
Simpson, City Recorder; Diana Smith-Bouwer, Project Specialist, Public
Affairs; Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director; Joel Komarek,
Project Director;Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Scot Siegel, Planning and
Building Services Director
Others Present: Alan Peck, Brown and Caldwell
______________________________________________________________________
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4.PRESENTATION
4.1Unsung Hero Awards
Report
Mayor Studebakerprovided background and criteria on Lake Oswego’s annual Unsung Hero
awards, detailed in the Council Report. Assisted by Councilor LaMotte, he presented award
plaques to the2017winners: Mark Browne, for his efforts in preserving, archiving, and curating
photos and other historic items, both for the Lake Oswego Public Library and Oswego Heritage
Council collections; Jan Castle and Duke Castle, fornumerous significant contributions to the
sustainability and emergency preparedness of Lake Oswego formore than 20 years; and Taylor
Finley, forhelping neighborhoods in various ways with preparedness effortsfor earthquake and
other emergencies.Each of the winners spoke briefly in accepting their awards.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 1of 13
December 19, 2017
5.CITIZEN COMMENT
Michael F.Van Hoomissen, 3350 Fir Ridge Road
Mr. Van Hoomissendescribed himself as a supporter of the School District bond andof
swimming in the community. He indicated that the current opportunity for a community poolwould
be available for consideration only for a short time; therefore, he asked Council to direct Staff to
explorethe idea of a community pool, as discussed in the Council Report provided for the study
session (Agenda Item 6.1). The key question, he observed, is whether or not the City should take
advantage of economies of scale to serve not only students, but the rest of the citizens. He noted
the importance of determining soon the views of the broader community, regardless of how they
may have voted on the bond measure.
Bob Barman, 1445 Oak Terrace
Mr. Barmanspoke on behalf of the Lake Oswego School Board. He was accompanied by
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mike Musick and by Executive Director of Project Management
Randy Miller, both of the School District. Mr. Barmanpresented a statement from the School
Board that had been provided to the Council in written form. Beginning with background on the
existing School District pool, he highlighted its extensive use for community programs: Only 12%
of the available pool time is used for high school swim and waterpolo teams, while the other 88%
is used for various community programs. He reviewed the school bond measure approved in May
2017, which had included a $7 million allocation for repair or replacement of the District pool.
Detailing various deficiencies of the pool, he expressed the Board’s concern that the allocated $7
million would not be sufficient to meetthe needs of the community and the District.The Board
requeststhat the City and the District explorepossibilities fordeveloping a partnership to build a
pool that would benefit Lake Oswego citizens and the School District.The Board proposes to
initiate the process of creating a Memorandum of Understanding. This would include
opportunitiesfor City and District to work together to research potential sites and achieve an
understanding of what it means to co-own and/or co-manage a community asset of this kind.The
District has identified a pent-up demand for such an asset in Lake Oswego, and wants to work in
partnershipwith the City to determine the type of facility that is needed and desired by the
community.
In response to questions from Councilor Manzand Mayor Studebaker,Mr. Barmanand Mr.
Millerindicated that the pool design and construction timeline was contingent upon having all
financing in place.Mr. Barmanconfirmed that the Districthad the allocated $7 million for the
project and described the Board’s confidence in managing costs. CouncilorLaMotterequested
information about the pool design and usage envisioned when the $7 million estimate was
derived.Mr. Barmanindicated that the District’s bonding strategies were a factor.Mr. Miller
noted that the more recent study by a pool consultant had outlined current options for the facility;
the School Board had selected one that was estimated inthe $12 millionrange. He indicated that
the predominant use as a community pool had been a factor in thatselection. Mr. Barman
described the District’s commitment and resources for working with the City in partnership to build
the right facility.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 2of 13
December 19, 2017
Councilor LaMotteaskedabout availability of the $2 million contributed by the City to the School
District earlier inresponse to concerns about the District reserves level.Mr. Barmanprovided
background. Mr. Musickindicated that the District’s reserves were continuing to be strengthened
andwere projected to reach $9 million within three years.Councilor Gudmanrequested
clarification of the difference between the $7 million and $12 million estimates. Mr. Barman
described the poolconsultant’s determinationof needs for the facility. He confirmed that the $7
million allocation in the bond measure was based on a facility of a lesser scale than what is now
envisioned.
Councilor Kohlhoffrequested clarification of pool usagestatistics.Mr. Barmanindicated that
about 12% of available time is used by the two high schools’ water polo and swim teams; a variety
of community uses outside the high school athletic programs accounts for the rest of the time.
Councilor Gudmannoted that, if the City and District were to move forward as requested, a core
issue would be finding a source of funding for the$5 millioncost difference. Mr. Barman
reiterated the Board’s belief that the two bodies could work this out togetherand emphasized the
need for an adequate facility to serve the community.
5.1Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up
No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented.
6.STUDY SESSIONS
6.1CommunitySwimming Pool
Report
Mr. Lazenbynoted that the study session provided the City Councilan opportunity to discuss the
direction they wished to go with a potential community swimming pool. He advised that the
Council policy regarding preservation of assets provided some guidancein that a strategy for
funding of operation and maintenance wasrequired before acquiringor constructingnew facilities.
He outlined somepossible directions the Council might choose: (1) to focus on the current Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) rather than to have the City involved in a pool facility; (2) to provide
capital fundingto supplement construction costs for facilities that would better meet community
needs; and (3) to have the City take a more active role in havingan aquatics center orpool as
part of a recreation center.
In respondingto initial questions from Mayor Studebaker,Mr. Anderholmnoted that current
Parks and Recreation staff had experience in operating aquatics facilities. In general, the costs
of operating a pooldepend to a great extent on the configuration of the pool and the users being
targeted.The rule of thumb, he indicated, is that pools do not make money. As an example, he
cited the approximate annual deficit of $300,000 for the Oregon City municipal pool, which
functions very well as compared to similar pools around the country.
Councilor Kohlhoffrequested information about the current deficit for the golf course operation
andhow it might be affected byre-configuration to nine holes or by addition of a pool at the site.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 3of 13
December 19, 2017
Mr. Anderholmexplained that the golf course feasibility study in January would include some of
this information, and that Staff could prepare at least preliminary information about a golf
course/pool format.
Councilor Buckinquired about Parks Board consideration of apool facility at the golf course.
Mr. Anderholmindicated that it had been discussed only in concept.On the current listing for
Parks and Recreation, it was ranked 18 of27 unfunded CIP projects. The Board hadnotre-
evaluated the priority since passage of the school bondmeasure.In response to further questions
from Councilor Buck,Mr. Anderholmadvised that the current Parks bonds, totaling about $20
million, have maturity datesofJune2019, June 2020, and June 2022. Theseoffered the potential
for funding the needed $5 million for a pool with no increase for taxpayers, subject tovoter
approval, he confirmed; this opportunity could also pertain to a multitude of other Parks projects.
Councilor Manzasked about the likely timeframe for a pool discussion. Mr. Anderholmadvised
that this depended on the type of facility that was planned.Noting that the studies prepared for
theLake Oswego SwimClub and for the School District differ from one another, he discussed the
importance of defining the facility needs.From that point,he advised,design and construction
would require approximately three years.
Councilor Gudmanrequested more information ondifferences between the facilities proposed
in the Swim Club and School District studies.The key difference was in the design of the main
pool: The Swim Club study proposed a 10-lane, 50-meter pool with removable bulkhead while
the School District preference was for a 25-yard x 25-meterpool with 10 lanes. Other aspects,
including a warm-water pool, were comparable in the two proposals. Brief discussion followed
Councilor Gudman’s inquiry about potential impacts on taxpayers if the City were to seek
additional money after the Parks bonds maturity dates.Mr. Lazenbyindicated that this source
would be adequate for covering the $5 million gap related to the pool facility. Council, however,
would need to determine how a pool would rank in comparison to other Parks CIP projects that
might be funded with bonds in the future.
Councilor O'Neillasked about any examples of pools in the region that operated at or near a
deficit-neutrallevel.Though he was not aware of any examples, Mr. Anderholmobserved that
a higher degree of cost recovery is seen where swimming facilities were combined with other
recreational opportunities. He discussed specific locations and factors related to such cases.
Citing the North Clackamas Aquatic Park as an example, he noted that effective programming
was generally more critical than street visibility as an influence on cost recovery. He emphasized
the importance of identifying the primary customer and the community’s needs from the outset.
Next he addressed questions from Councilor Kohlhoffabout anticipated costs to the taxpayer if
the three current bonds were to be extended.Based on an average assessed value of $400,000,
the net annual amountfor a homeownerwas $100. Thiswould remain essentially the same if
voters opted to issue bonds for reinvestment of this $22 million in a pool or other projects on the
Parks CIP list, he indicated.Councilor Kohlhoffasked about the likelihood of housing the Parks
and Recreation Department staff at or near a new community facility. Mr. Anderholmindicated
that this was a high priority of both the staff and the Parks Board, particularly if it was a combined
facility for both pool and other recreational activities.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 4of 13
December 19, 2017
Councilor LaMottediscussed the City’s role in helping to meet community needs. Noting the
continuing discussion about the community’s need for a pool, he indicated that the time was right
for answering the many related questions. To this end, City staffand School District
representatives should undertake a small feasibility study to be completed on a short deadline.
He discussed a variety of questions needing to be explored before the Council discusses funding,
and then asked if the Parks and Recreation Department had a perception of the demand for a
pool in Lake Oswego. Mr. Anderholmexplained that current data was not available from Staff;
he was aware, based on talking with Swim Club and School District representatives, that the
District pool was programmed heavily and was in constantuse. He discussed how an improved
swimming facility could provide opportunities to host large regional events.
Councilor Gudmanasked about the possibility of including related questions in the upcoming
community surveyto aid in decision making. Mr. Lazenbyindicated that this was feasible. Mayor
Studebakerexpressed concerns about financial implications and priorities for the City and the
need to have time to consider these. He called for Council discussion on Mr. Barman’s suggestion
that City and School District representatives meet to explore the matter.
Mr. Lazenbyobserved that a fundamental issue would be determining Council’s view on
responsibility for the pool: Did Council envision shifting the pool responsibility to the City, where
it would comprise part of the City recreation program, with the District contributing to construction
and operations? Alternatively, did Council envision the City assisting and providing capital
funding for a resource that would continue to be managed and operated by the District?
Councilor Manzindicated that at the present time she would prefer that management of the pool
remain with the District, with the City taking a secondary role.
Councilor Bucknoted that the location chosen for a poolwould be a deciding factor. Apool at
a City facility would best be operated by the City, while if a School District site was chosen, it
would make more sense for the District to operate it. The opportunity to site a poolat a community
recreation facility offerssignificant benefits to the City; for example, a pool at the golf course
location would provide synergy and other benefits to nearby City assets such as Raseekh Park
and Luscher Farm. It was wellworth Council’s time to explore the question with the School
District, together with City staff and the community, he stated. He emphasized the opportune
timing because of various converging issues, including needs for a community pooland a home
for Parks and Recreation, as well as the potential financing mechanism with the expiring Parks
bonds.He noted his opposition to including pool-related questions on the community survey,
viewing it as a delay tactic and an ineffective means of seeking community input on the issue.
Councilor Kohlhoffdiscussed the importance of focus by the Council on financial dataas
compared to continuing exploration of needs for a pool. She suggested that the City’s Finance
Director complete an analysis, using information provided by the appropriate experts, within two
to three months. This would enable Council to understand financial impactsto the City under the
different scenarios.
Likening this discussion to ones related to the Water Treatment Plant(WTP),Councilor O'Neill
asked if City staff had spoken with West Linn counterparts about a possible joint pool project.
Brief discussion followed, with Mr. Lazenbyagreeing to explore possibilities.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 5of 13
December 19, 2017
Councilor LaMottediscussed the need fora package of information including the various options
and costs, and also for providing a response to the community. This can best be achieved through
discussion between District and City representatives, with support from City staff, he indicated.
Mayor Studebakerexpressed a desire to survey votersto ensure that Council has heard from a
broader range of community members.He proposed that a Council decision be deferred until the
costsare better understood. In ensuing discussion of how Staff might proceed with an analysis,
it was determined that representatives of the City Council and School District would meet to
discuss options.
6.22016-17 Financial Review
Report and Attachments
Mr. Crossindicated that the City’s overall 2016-17 financial results were favorable as compared
to budget, as detailed in the Council Report.
Councilor Gudmanasked if it was accurate to anticipate that the expected PERS increases of
the next six yearswould absorb the full amount received through property tax increases over that
period, and more. Mr. Crossstated this would be the case for the majority of that growth.
Councilor Buckasked about the methodology for department budget allocations when the City
had more money than anticipated.Mr. Lazenbyexplained that a share of general revenues was
allocated to departments, generally based on the increase in growth. A remaining amount is left
for the Council to allocate; largely this allocation has been to Streets.The processwas laid out
in the Budget document, he advised. Acknowledging the challenges presented by the PERS
increases, hesuggested that the actual spending shown in the Council Report, rather than budget
allocations, were of primary concern. He and Mr. Crossclarified with examples.
Councilor LaMotterequested clarification of two points in the Council Report.Mr. Cross
responded: (1) Trolley (p 3).This pertained to payments made by the City as a contributing
member of the consortiumof governmental entities for the trolley line.(2) SDCrevenuesof $2.1
million over budget (p 4) were differentiated from the estimated $800,000 ending fund balance
that would become available for Council to allocate in the coming budget-planning process (p 5).
Mr. Crossindicated that he would respond at a later date with information about available funds
for downtown projects.
Councilor Gudmandiscussedhis serious concerns about the financial challengesthe City will
face in the coming years because of the previously-approved salary increases, as contracted,
and the PERS costs over that period.These will fully absorb the amount of property tax increases
over the same period, leaving the City much less latitudefor spending.
6.32017 Update to the 2001 Water Master Plan
Report
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 6of 13
December 19, 2017
Mr. Komarek,leading the update processfor the City’s 2001Water Master Plan, was
accompanied by Mr. Peck ofBrown and Caldwell,the consulting firm selected to assist the City.
Highlighting purposes of a master plan as noted in the Council Report, Mr. Komarekadvised that
this update was timely because of completion of the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership
project and related demands now on the water system. Developing information on seismic events
was another factor guiding the timing.A PowerPoint presentation accompanied his overview.
Continuing the presentation,Mr. Peckdiscussed the heightened focus on water system resilience
in master planning. The Lake Oswego-Tigard backbone system had beendesignedto survive
the Cascadia subduction zone earthquake; however, other aspects of Lake Oswego’s system
were aged and could be at risk.He noted that a voluntaryOregon Resilience Plantarget called
for upgrades to be made gradually over a 50-yearperiod.Key components of the water backbone
system, including the major pipes and pump stations, can serveas thefoundation of a system
that would deliver water to critical facilities following a major earthquake. Such facilities had been
identified: City Hall, Police and Fire stations because of their command and control functions;
schools and churches that might serve as emergency shelters; the City Maintenance Center,
which was required to address repairs; and key water facilities, such as the major reservoirs and
pump stations, through which water could be re-introduced to the rest of the system.
Also being addressed by the consultant isan assessment of the water backbone’s resilience.
This involved overlaying the backbone map on a map of seismic risk categories; analysis was
focused on backbone elementsin the medium-and high-risk areasin order to develop a
probability of failure in a major earthquake. Mr. Peckreported that this had followed assessments
of structural, maintenance, and other issues that the Cityhad conducted on certain facilities.
Brown and Caldwell’s study includesan initial assessment of risk on these facilitiesand would
likely lead to recommendations for further assessment and improvements.Next he discussed
approaches to mitigating seismic risk, such as replacement of pipes and pipe joints and addition
or improvement to reservoir ground anchors.
Riskto the source of supply isanother major issue being evaluated.Considerations range from
power outages at the WTP to seasonal curtailment to contaminant spills, aside from major
catastrophic events like an earthquake or dam break. The need for an emergency water source
was deemed essential. He discussed varioussupply options, includingthe City’s water right on
the Willamette River,a couple of options that might be afforded through City of Tigardwells, and
current or prospective connectionsmade by Tigard with other entities in the region. A key priority,
he indicated, might be maintaining the Tigard partnership and making the emergency supply and
related risks a topic on the operational agenda.
Mr. Komarekclarifiedthat in situations of short-term loss of its water supply, i.e., a day or two,
the Tigard demand would be off-loaded and Tigard would rely on one of its other connections. In
the event of a catastrophic event in which access to the Clackamas River was precluded for an
extendedperiod, Tigard would be able to use its connections to the other supply sources and
thereby provide this water back to the City of Lake Oswego.
In concluding, Mr. Peckadvised that the draft master plan report would be available for review
by the end of January. The final report would include a capital improvement programand findings,
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 7of 13
December 19, 2017
with a full range of related potential improvements, as well as budgets and schedules. The intent
of the updated master plan was to provide a roadmap for the City going forward.
Councilor Manz requested information about the function of pipes shown on the water system
backbone map.In clarifying the category in question, Mr. Peckexplained that age of the pipes
was only one of the factors being included in the analysis. In order to assess the probability of
survival for keysegments of pipe, the analysis included type of pipe material and joints, as well
as potential ground movement at these locations.
Mr. Komarekresponded to questions from Councilor LaMotte, describing efforts to ensure that
the plan included accurate and complete information on critical facilities in an emergency. He
discussed the lake as an emergency supply source, indicating that water-treatment challenges
would make this less viable than the Willamette River option. The master plan did not contemplate
additional measures that might berecommended for water reservesat schools oraccess to water
by neighborhood residents, he indicated.
In response to Councilor Gudman’s question, Mr. Komarekadvised that it was Staff’s goal to
include a project listing and associated dollar amounts for the water systemCIPin time for the
next budget-planning cycle.He noted that the update included no assumptions whatsoever with
regard to supplying water to the Staffordarea.
Councilor Manzasked about any coordination efforts in support of the City’s “dig-once” policy as
replacement or repair of backbone pipesis planned.Mr. Komarekindicatedthat both the
consultant team and City staff are very mindful of the need to coordinate construction efforts. He
described specific opportunities related to the Jefferson Parkwayprojectplanned forsummer
2018.
6.4Ordinance 2759, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC
50.06.003.1, LOC 50.07.007.2 and LOC 50.10.003.2 of Chapter 50 (Community
Development Code) for the Purpose of Updating the Flag Lot Standards Regarding
Landscaping, Setbacks and Parking; Limiting the Number of Flag Lots Served by
an Access Lane to Two; Removing the Requirement to Connect Access Lanes;
Amending the Definition of Flag Lot, and Adopting Findings (LU 17-0052).
Report and Exhibits
Ms. Hamiltonexplained that the study session would orient the Council to flag lot issues, in
preparation for the January 2 public hearing on the amendments. With an accompanying
PowerPoint presentation, she reviewed the evolution of flag lots in Lake Oswego andhighlighted
changessince the initial standards were adopted in 1998. Graphics illustrating the commonly-
seen flag lot configurations were described; this was followed by examples of recent flag lot
developments invarying settings. She differentiated the access provided by a driveway, which
serves one lot, from an access lane, which serves two or more lots. The major issue in this
package of amendments is the Planning Commission recommendation to limit flag lot
developments to a configuration of two flag lots with one fronting standard lot, i.e., a total of three
lots; the two flag lots could be served by a 20-foot access lane. Developments of four or more
lots would be required to provide a public street with 50-foot right of way. In contrast, the current
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 8of 13
December 19, 2017
codeallows up to eight lots to be served by a 20-foot access lane, whilethe public street is
required for nine or more lots.In reviewing the Planning Commission’s five study sessions and
two public hearings, she describedconsideration given to impactsof the related changes.The
Commission had requested that Staff explore with the City Engineer the possibility of a narrower
public-street option; this had not proven palatable in view of the 50-foot right of way required by
the Transportation System Plan. Staff had returned to Planning Commission with an option for a
38-foot private street with very specific standards. In response to that, the Commission had heard
public comment expressing various concerns, including parking, aesthetic, and access issues.
The Commission itselfidentified concerns aboutdensity impacts.Mr. Siegelnoted that the likely
preference of the Commission was for a narrower public-street option; accordingly, he believed
that this might be proposed as an item for their work program.
Ms. Hamiltondiscussed a graphiccomparison of the three access options, i.e., access lane,
private street, and public street.She addressed a variety of questionsand commentsfrom
Council members about the three access options, clarifying that the proposed code retainsthe
private access lane, maintained by the property owners, for flag lot development.The Planning
Commission had not recommended the private-street option; therefore, with these amendments
a development of four or more lots would need to be served by a public street of 50-foot width.
Next she discussed photographs showing the varied range of private access lanes and streets to
very narrow public streets currently found around the city;often these are intended to provide
additional parking options.Mr. Siegelsuggested that, if the City were to allow more local streets
at a narrower width, a set of standards would be needed to ensure consistency and adequate
maintenance. This had not been achieved in the current amendments process, but should be
kept in mind, he indicated.
Ms. Hamiltondescribed Staff’s analysis of dividable properties and potential impacts on density
for the City. In brief related discussion, Council was advised that loss of density would be
anticipated mostly in the low-density zones, where there was capacity.Mr. Siegelnoted that the
Planning Commission findings suggest that the change is negligible in relation to the city’s overall
inventory. Ms. Hamiltonnext discussed proposed code changes to orientation and setbacks
standards as means of addressing access-lane parking issues. In comparison to current code,
the amendments would require one additional parking space on alane for each of the two flag
lots served by it.
Finally, shediscussed additional issues that were addressed by the proposed amendments. One
of these pertained to standards that had not been considered with the prior set of flag lot
amendments in 2010, specifically with regard to allowing flexibility for orientation of the flag lot
furthestfrom the public street. Another related to modified screening requirements for access
lanes so as to address issues with utilities while achieving the goal of mitigating impacts to
abutting property owners.She concluded with background on additional amendments proposed
for flag lots, including (1) an increase from 10 to 15 feet for setback of the dwelling from the access
lane, (2) deletion of the garage appearance and location standards, (3) updates to landscaping
and fencing standards that had not been included with the 2010 amendments,(4) clarification of
the lot coverage and floor area calculations,and (5) a clarified flag lot definition.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 9of 13
December 19, 2017
In response to Mayor Studebaker’s inquiry, Ms. Hamiltonclarified current parking requirements:
Each flag lot was required to have one space. Only if the access lane served seven or eight
properties was additional parking required; in that case, four spaceson the lanewere required.
Councilor LaMottequestioned the rationale for disallowing driveway spaces as required parking.
He posed additional questions about needs for additional parking, citing differing situations in the
city. Given the particularly limited on-street parking available in certain areas, he indicated that
theamended parking standard might not need to apply to flag lot development throughout the
city.
Councilor Buckrequested clarification of the issues related to trash receptacles.With
inadequate space at the street and aesthetics on pick-up days identified, he asked about
considerations made during the amendments process. Ms. Hamiltonindicated that this had not
been discussed in detail; as there was not a current standard for garbage requirements on any
lot, the Planning Commission did not recommend exploring this in the amendments process.He
asked for additional detail on the barriers to proposing a narrower public-street alternative for the
six-or seven-lot developments. Ms. Hamiltonnoted that a primary concern was the
responsibilities of maintaining such roads, both with regard to cost and logistics.Mr. Siegel
characterized this as a policy issue. A future code amendment might specify more explicitly the
City’s standards for narrower public streetsin an in-fill situation that does not require street
connection.Mr. Lazenbysuggested that Staff could present pros and cons on the issue to
Council at a future date.
Councilor Kohlhoffobserved that the Cedar Street and GoodallRoad projects exemplifythe
type of development she does not wish to see in the future.She expressed concurrence with the
Planning Commission recommendation for the configuration of one standard lot plus two flag lots,
as well as the requirement for a 50-foot public street forthe larger configurations. She discussed
concernsabout standards for maintenance ofprivate access lanes, believing that the lanes would
inevitably deteriorate and become the City’s issue. She strongly opposedany kind of gate or
similar obstruction toaccess by the public.
In response to additional questions from Councilor LaMotte,Mr. Siegeldifferentiated driveways,
access lanes, and easements in the context of the recommended amendments. He expressed
confidence that the Planning Commission and Staff were comfortable with the definitions and with
the recommended standards: for an access lane serving not more than two flaglots, a driveway
serving one standard lot, for a total of three lots. Concluding the presentation of the Planning
Commission’s proposal, he advised Council that Staff would return for the public hearing on
January 2.
7.CONSENT AGENDA –For Full Council Approval
Motion: Move to adopt the Consent Agenda.
7.1Approval of Meeting Minutes
7.1.2 November 7, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 10of 13
December 19, 2017
Motion: Move to approve the minutes as written.
Report and Attachments
7.2Findings, Conclusions and Order, (LU 17-0024) Zoning Map Amendments for
Property at 1770Ridgecrest Drive
Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order denying the requested
Zoning Map amendment for 1770Ridgecrest Drive and directing staff to revise the
application.
Report and Attachment
7.3Findings, Conclusionsand Order Legalizing PortionsoftheBoones Ferry Road and
Lanewood Street Rights-of-Way Adjacent to 15630 Boones Ferry Road
Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order legalizing portions of the
Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street rights-of-way adjacent to 15630 Boones Ferry
Road.
Report and Attachment
END CONSENT AGENDA
CouncilorManzmoved to approvethe Consent Agenda.CouncilorBuckseconded the
motion.
Mayor Studebakerindicated that Agenda Item 7.1.1on the published agenda, approval of
regular meeting minutes of October 17, 2017, had been removed from the Consent Agenda in
response to a request from Councilor LaMotte. Note: Item 7.1.1was considered by Council
following Agenda Item 8.1.
Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors
LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill,Manz, and Gudmanvoting ‘aye’.(7-0)
8.CONSENT AGENDA –For City Councilors’Approval
8.1Resolution 17-57, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego
Approving an Appointment to the Planning Commission
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-57.
Report and Attachment
Councilor Gudmanmoved to adoptResolution 17-57.CouncilorManzseconded the
motion.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 11of 13
December 19, 2017
Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,withCouncilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck,
O'Neill, Manz, and Gudmanvoting ‘aye’.(6-0)
Having removed Item 7.1.1 (Approval of Meeting Minutes, October 17, 2017, Regular Meeting
Minutes) from the Consent Agenda,MayorStudebakernext called on Councilor LaMotte.
Councilor LaMotte, citing text from the draft minutes (Attachment 1, p 7 of 8), noted that the
study session on Housing Redevelopment and Trees had not been held; further, at the December
5 Council meeting, the topic had been added to the agenda at the end of the meeting. After a
motion and vote, a Council majority had elected not to take up the topic of the study session, he
indicated. Subsequentcomplaints had come to him from the publicabout lack of notice of the
December 5agenda item, as well as about the decisionitself. He requested information about
legal aspects related to votes by the Council.
Mr. Powellreviewed the process by which items could be added to or removed from the City
Council agenda. The Charter states that the Mayor sets the agenda; it also provides that the City
Council will adopt procedures that it will follow. The Council’s procedures state that the Mayor
determines the agenda; that any one Councilor may request that a matter be placed on the
agenda; and also that a majority of Councilors may direct that a matter be placed on the agenda.
Having read the pertinent portion of minutes for the October 17 meeting, at which he was not
present, Mr. Powellindicated that it reflected an informal poll of Councilors’ wishes. It did not
appear that anyone had violated a motion. Ifthe intent was to directthat a study session, for
example, be placed on the agenda, four Councilors could make that direction; he suggestedthat
a motion to this effect be made to ensure clear documentation on the agenda.
Additional concerns were expressed by Councilor LaMotteregarding the permissibility of adding
an item at a meeting for which the agenda had been published earlier. Mr. Powelldiscussed
pertinent aspects of public meetingslaw,which in itself did not prohibit the Council from taking up
anaddeditem. However, there could be other factors that could preclude this, he noted. It was
often a matter of policy for the Council, which could decide that a matter would better be discussed
with advance notice to the public or after other considerations are made. Following additional
discussionwith Council members, he emphasized that Council is in charge of its agenda and has
the means of changing it, as discussed.
Councilor Kohlhoffexpressed understanding of Councilor LaMotte’s concerns, but
acknowledged that the Council Rules of Procedure provided the opportunity for a motion as
described. She inquired about the ability ofCouncil to amend theRules.Mr. Powelladvised that
only the adoption of a Resolution is needed to change the rules, which the Council may do.
Review of the Rules is frequently a topic at annual Goal Setting, he added. Discussion followed
regarding distinctions between motions and straw polls in relation to subsequent action taken.
Councilor Kohlhoffsuggested thatCouncil review the Rules at Goal Setting. Councilor Buck
indicated that a better policy for the Council would be to limit straw polling where a motion and
vote would eliminate confusion.
Councilor Gudmanmoved toapprovethe October 17, 2017, regular meetingminutes as
written. CouncilorManzseconded the motion.
City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 12of 13
December 19, 2017
� woic� v�r�e �as he�+d, �n�i th� mvkic�r� ��p �s�d, with �Iayar ��a�debake� and ���ncilors
�.�P�ofi�ep K�oh�h��', �uc�C, t�"INeil�� �'la�z, and Gudr�an vati�ac� `aye'. (7-4)
9. I F�� '��O���P� ��� ��"J�t��IL
�m�u�ci��or�la�z annc�ranced that t��Audit�Cc�r�rn�ttee had m�t on C7�c�rx�b�r 4�nd+�r�s re�c�rting
��o excel�ient a�adit. The a�d'iita�r �ad noted th�t, �rnc�c�g rn�ny other rr�raanicipal �udits, tihe Ci�y's
stands au� �s �mr�s�st�o�tly cl�ar� an� ex�epti�nal to uv�rk w�th, She camr��nd�d �h� �inance
�7epartm�nt..
Cc�un��l�r F�cah�hr�f�r�pc�rt�d th�t she and Gc�ur�cilar G�dmar� h�d �e�r� app��rrted tm the L��gu�;
�f t�reg�r� GNti�s' Financ� arrd 'f`�x�t�an Gammit���; Ca�n�ifor Kol�lh��' wiPl �Iso �erve c�ra tV��
�n�r�y �a�rnitte�.
��uncil'car Gu�lman advnsed �hat he exp�c�s ��unci8 merrbk�ers t� b� very �aNeased wntf� tf�� �uvark
�f the Su�t�irrabi'9ity Advi�c�ryr �r�ard or� t'he Clirrrate A.c�ic�� PNan, wh�ch wNll �e cami�tg ta Cau�acil
in ��rly ��18. I�w�ll be very specific arrd actit�n or�"rented. F-�e �Isa cepar��;d that �� has rec�%v�d
a nurr�ber of cQmplirraents�ar tlh� Libra�y fc�r makung P�adic� Freq�.,��ncy Identificatian �R�ID} syster�rti
avaiNab�e.
°�4�. f��F��1�°T� F �F�V����
fVo r�parts w�r� r�a�le.
1�1. �� ��T'
��y+�r a�r�d�b�ker�dyc�urn�d t�� �rre�ting at �:�� p.rrr.
Resp�ctfuC9y s�rbmitt�d,
:��'�''�Gt.�r�
Ar�ne-f1llarie Sirrrps�n, City Recorder
A�PROVEL� BY TH� CITY �G41JtVCfL:
�71� y�k�d.�..�t.h., d�P��
�.� '�
.��.����,� �..����-�°,,����.,
Ke�tt att�de�aker, �1'ayc�r
City Coe�ncil R�gutl�r �/l�et�n�...11�inute� P�g� �f 3 of �3
Decerruber 'tl�, �2��7