HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2009-02-17 �OFLAKEOSN,f
c..90
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
6:30 p.m.
OREGON
Council Chambers
2009 City Council City Hall
Jack Hoffman, Mayor 380 A Avenue
Donna Jordan, Council President
RogerHennagin Also published on-line: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us
Kristin Johnson Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Mary Olson E-Mail: rhristie@ci.oswego.or.us
Sally Moncrieff Phone: 503-675-3984
Bill Tierney
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations,
please contact Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page#
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Distinguished Service Award, Stephan Lashbrook
3.2 Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Update (LOIS)
4. CONSENT AGENDA
• The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that
require no discussion.
• An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
• The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the
consent agenda.
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 09-05, approving appointments to the Library 1
Advisory Board
Action: Adopt resolution 09-05 approving the appointment of David White
to the Library Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending
January 31, 2011, John Ferrel, Richard Slaven, and Shelby Campion for
three-year terms ending January 31, 2012, and Ann Pritchard as alternate
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1
February 17, 2009
4.1.2 Resolution 09-09, reaffirming support and endorsement of the 5
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and authorizing
Mayor Jack D. Hoffman to sign the agreement.
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-09
4.1.3 Resolution 09-10, approving appointments to the Historic 13
Resources Advisory Board
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-10, approving the re-
appointment of Tim Mather to the Historic Resources Advisory
Board for a three-year term ending December 31, 2011, the
appointment of Kasey Holwerda and Marylou Colver for three-
year terms ending December 31, 2011, and Craig Foster as
alternate
4.1.4 Resolution 09-11, approving an appointment to the Planning 17
Commission
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-11, approving the appointment
of Jon C. Gustafson to a four year term on the Planning
Commission from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2013
4.2 REPORTS
4.2.1 Resignation of Alison Webster from the Planning Commission 21
Action: Accept resignation
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 January 20, 2009, regular meeting 27
4.3.2 January 27, 2009, special meeting 41
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present
information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or
regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A
time limit of five minutes per citizen shall apply.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2
February 17, 2009
7. ORDINANCES
7.1 Ordinance 2536, amending the Lake Oswego Code relating to the City's 55
Budget Period and the terms of appointed Budget Committee members
Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2536
8. RESOLUTIONS
8.1 Resolution 09-06, establishing the terms of appointed Budget Committee 59
members
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 09-06
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the
agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and
Intergovernmental Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.2 City Attorney
11. STUDY SESSION
11.1 Business Recycling Requirements Program 63
11.2 Sensitive Lands Community Development Code Amendments 81
12. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: the Regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel
28, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on
Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m.
Friday 2:30 a.m.
Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Sunday 4:00 p.m.
Monday 11:00 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3
February 17, 2009
„LAKE os,tef
co CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, February 19, 2009
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
2009 City Council City Hall
Jack Hoffman, Mayor 380 A Avenue
Donna Jordan, Council President
Roger Hennagin Also published on the Internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Kristin Johnson Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Mary Olson E-Mail: rhristie@ci.oswego.or.us
Sally Moncrieff Phone: 503-675-3984
Bill Tierney
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request
accommodations, please contact Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before
the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Facilities and West End Building Decision — Next Steps
4. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be rebroadcast on channel 30:
Friday, 7:00 p.m. Sunday, 7:00 a.m.
Saturday, 3:00 p.m. Wednesday, 2:30 a.m.
CITY
EETING COUNCIL I
LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
DATE M
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
February 17 • LOIS Update
• Distinguished Service Award, Stephan Lashbrook
• US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (Res. 09-09)
• Code amendment to return to one-year budget cycle
(Ord. 2536)
• Establishing terms for the Budget Committee
(Res. 09-06)
• Appointments to Library Advisory Boa
• Appointments to Historic Resource visory Board
• Appointment to Planning Commi
Study Session .
• Business Recycling Requireme j,Pre,gram � �
• Sensitive Lands Amendmen 7,0
�
Thursday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Co it Chambers
February 19 • Facilities/WEB Decisio P 9ess — xt Steps
v,.
Tuesday, Study Session, 6 3 m. Council Cha, z rs
February 24 • Visioning, Steve
• Comprehensive Sri is RevieWq
• Streetcar Design U ate
Wednesday, Study S- 'on, 6:30 p.m 9% cil rs
February 25 • C. t :F If1,41 et Commi g e: Finan /Budget 101
• "
4ovement n
pital o
Tuesday, Re.u alfAi-e 0 • m. ,•uncil Chambers
March 3 LOIS 9»atrots e`' / �
ergo 7,0 ental Agreement with City of Portland
onm Srvices for the Tryon Creek Restoration
#14-ie P r6
j
:, Public H "ping
a Sensi e Lands CDC Amendments — General Housekeeping
°,. . o .,' olicy related) LU 08-0051(A)
• � en Involvement Guidelines
• / omprehensive Plan Work Program
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 10 • Tentative Public Hearing NW Housing Appeal
Tuesday, No meeting — Council to National League of Cities Conference
March 17
BOLD ITEMS—New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 2/12/09
CITY COUNCIL/ LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 24 • Tentative adoption of findings NW Housing Appeal
Public Hearing
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 31 • Redevelopment Agency 101 (with David Leland, pending
availability)
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chamb
April 7 • LOIS Update
• Contract Award for Lake Full Co u ' v ',.- LOIS
Public Hearing 4
• Palisades Map Correctio w�
r
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. 0u Cham
April 14 • Foothills/Streetcar
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6 council Cha
April 21 • LOIS Update
Public ng �
Tuesday, *,; essio .f :30 p.m. C c�.. Chambers
April • ��' ����p Jo� ee f the City � ancil and Lake Oswego School
Boa �u� 4ft t )
,x„ -
BOLD ITEMS— New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 2/12/09
4. 1 . 1
ITotLAKE ngrve
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
at
c COUNCIL REPORT
OREGQN
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-05, approving appointments to the Library Advisory
Board
DATE: February 3, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to approve Resolution 09-05, approving appointments to the
Library Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Hennagin and Moncrieff,
and Nancy Niland Shatsky, Chair of the Library Advisory Board, interviewed five
candidates on January 28, 2009. The Committee recommends the appointment of
David White to fill the remainder of a three-year term that ends January 31, 2011;
recommends the appointment of John Ferrel, Richard Slaven and Shelby Campion for
three-year terms on the Library Advisory Board ending January 31, 2012, and
recommends the appointment of Ann Pritchard as alternate should there be a vacancy
through December 31, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-05
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation'. A p
Reviewed b
n iw
/r ...ems! 111
City Attr n°y
Alex D. cl tyre
City Manager
1
RESOLUTION 09-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Hennagin and
Moncrieff, and Nancy Niland Shatsky, Chair of the Library Advisory Board, met on
January 28, 2009, to interview candidates for the Library Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that David
White be appointed to the Library Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term
ending January 31, 2011; that John Ferrel, Richard Slaven and Shelby Campion be
appointed to three-year terms ending January 31, 2012; and that Ann Pritchard be
appointed to the Library Advisory Board as alternate should there be a vacancy through
December 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointments recommended by the Interview
Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego approves the appointment of David White to the Library Advisory Board
for the remainder of a three-year term ending January 31, 2011, approves the
appointment of John Ferrel, Richard Slaven, and Shelby Campion to the Library
Advisory Board for three-year terms ending January 31, 2012, and approves the
appointment of Ann Pritchard as alternate on the Library Advisory Board should there
be a vacancy through December 31, 2009.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 17th day of February, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS-T ORM:
David Powell, City Attorne
3
4. 1 .2
``A�OF LAiiivwKE Os„,4.
Al
,c,
1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
oREGOO
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner
SUBJECT: U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
DATE: February 6, 2009
ACTION
Approve Resolution 09-09 reaffirming support and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The City became a signatory to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005.
The Agreement supports strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities, and
the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution.
As of November 2008, more than 900 mayors from around the nation have signed the
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S.
Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005, which states:
A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies
and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming
pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to:
reduce the United States' dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the
development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient
technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy
generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient
motor vehicles, and biofuels;
B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction
legislation that 1) includes clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a
flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting
industries; and
5
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 2
C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global
warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities
such as:
1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the
community, set reduction targets and create an action plan.
2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve
open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip
reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example,
investing in "green tags", advocating for the development of
renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy
production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology;
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code
improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting
and urging employees to conserve energy and save money;
6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S.
Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles;
reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education
program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to
bio-diesel;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and
wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for
energy production;
10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community;
11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase
shading and to absorb CO2; and
12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional
associations, business and industry about reducing global warming
pollution.
DISCUSSION
As the City has a newly elected Mayor, this is an excellent time for the City Council to
show its support for and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement.
Since becoming a signatory of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, the City
has taken steps to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and incorporate sustainability
principles and practices into its operations. In 2007, the City became a member of
ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability, and as an active participant in the Cities
for Climate Protection Campaign agreed to undertake the Cities for Climate Protection
Campaign's five milestones to reduce both greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions
6
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 3
throughout the community. Additionally, the City adopted a Sustainability Plan for its
own operations on November 20th, 2007.
Subsequently, the City approved the formation of a community-based Sustainability
Advisory Board in February 2008, to promote the sustainability of the community as a
whole, taking into consideration effects of decisions and actions on ecological,
economic, and community systems.
Most recently, the Council has continued to show its commitment to promoting and
incorporating sustainable principles and practices in all City programs, policies, and
services, as evidenced through the adoption of its Council goals for 2009.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 09-09 reaffirming support and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-09
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. 51.-
epartmentDirector
City At rn
Alex . clntyre
City Manager
7
RESOLUTION 09-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
REAFFIRMING SUPPORT AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE
PROTECTION AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities,
communities, and the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution;
WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international
community's most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality
and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming
pollution; and
WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea
Ievel increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent decline in Arctic sea-ice
thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and
WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will
cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including:
increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode
beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more
frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address
climate disruption, went into effect, and 180 countries have signed and ratified the agreement as of
2008; with industrialized countries legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average
5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and
WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world's population, is
responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world's global warming pollutants; and
WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent
below 1990 levels by 2012; and
WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to
demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the US to
adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain
competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound
investment decisions; and
WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission
reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and
Democratic governors and mayors alike; and
Resolution 09-09
Page 1 of 4
9
WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global warming
pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced
energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic congestion,
improved transportation choices, and economic development and job creation through energy
conservation and new energy technologies; and
WHEREAS, local government actions taken to operate in a more sustainable manner provide
multiple local benefits by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and air and water pollution,
reducing waste and minimizing impacts on habitat, creating jobs, reducing energy expenditures, and
saving money for the local government, its businesses, and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the State of Oregon Governor's Executive Order 06-02, Sustainability for the 21st
Century encourages local governments to develop sustainable practices; and
WHEREAS, the City is a member of ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability, and as an
active participant in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign has agreed to undertake the Cities
for Climate Protection Campaign's five milestones to reduce both greenhouse gas and air pollution
emissions throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Sustainability Plan for its own operations on November 20th, 2007;
and
WHEREAS, the City approved the formation of a community-based Sustainability Advisory Board
on February 18, 2008, to promote the sustainability of the community as a whole, considering
public and private actors and their effects on ecological, economic, and community systems; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has continued to show its commitment to promoting and
incorporating sustainable principles and practices in all City programs, policies, and services, as
evidenced through the adoption of its Council goals for 2009, adopted on February 3, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Judie Hammerstad was a signatory of the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, as of November 2008, more than 900 mayors from around the nation have signed the
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S.
Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005,reads:
A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and
programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7
percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States'
dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical
energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane
recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells,
efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels;
B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation
that 1) includes clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based
Resolution 09-09
Page 2 of 4
10
system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and
C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global
warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such
as:
1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the
community, set reduction targets and create an action plan.
2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space,
and create compact,walkable urban communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip
reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in
`'green tags", advocating for the development of renewable energy resources,
recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of
waste to energy technology;
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements,
retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees
to conserve energy and save money;
6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green
Building Council's LEED program or a similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the
number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-
idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater
systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community;
11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading
and to absorb CO2; and
12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional
associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The City of Lake Oswego, Oregon reaffirms its support and endorsement of the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to sign the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the day of , 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
Resolution 09-09
Page 3 of 4
11
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
oV
David D. Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 09-09
Page 4 of 4
12
4. 1 .3
`,l,O,LA,,,,,,,,,,„KE osk'EAi
CO
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
rig
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGOK
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-10, approving appointments to the Historic
Resources Advisory Board
DATE: February 9, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to approve Resolution 09-10, approving appointments to the
Historic Resources Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Johnson and Tierney,
and Ron Smith, Chair of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, interviewed seven
candidates on January 22, 2009. The Committee recommends the re-appointment of
Tim Mather to the Historic Resources Advisory Board for a three-year term ending
December 31, 2011, the appointment of Kasey Holwerda and Marylou Colver to the
Historic Resources Advisory Board for three-year terms ending December 31, 2011,
and the appointment of Craig Foster as alternate on the Historic Resources Advisory
Board should there be a vacancy through November 30, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-10
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. ,v
Reviewed by:
-'4s,
City Aorhy /
Alex . cln yre
City Man er
13
RESOLUTION 09-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY
BOARD
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Hennagin and
Sally Moncrieff, and Jeannie McGuire, Co-Chair of the Historic Resources Advisory
Board, met on February 5, 2009, to interview candidates for the Historic Resources
Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Tim
Mather be re-appointed to the Historic Resources Advisory Board for a three-year term
ending December 31, 2011; that Kasey Holwerda and Marylou Colver be appointed to
three-year terms ending January 31, 2011; and that Craig Foster be appointed to the
Historic Resources Advisory Board as alternate should there be a vacancy through
November 30, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointments recommended by the Interview
Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego approves the re-appointment of Tim Mather to the Historic Resources
Advisory Board for a three-year term ending December 31, 2011, approves the
appointment of Kasey Holwerda and Marylou Colver to the Historic Resources Advisory
Board for three-year terms ending December 31, 2011, and approves the appointment
of Craig Foster as alternate on the Historic Resources Advisory Board should there be a
vacancy through November 30, 2009.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 17th day of February, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
AP OV D AS TO FORMS,
David Powell, City Attorn y
15
4. 1 .4
``t�O LAKE OS,vfCO
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
irofr,
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGOK
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-11, approving an appointment to the Planning
Commission
DATE: February 9, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to approve Resolution 09-11, approving an appointment to the
Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
When the City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Jordan and Olson,
and Julia Glisson, Chair of the Planning Commission, interviewed candidates on
January 22, 2009, they recommended the appointment of Jon C. Gustafson as
alternate to the Planning Commission should there be a vacancy through May 31, 2009.
In addition, they recommended appointment of Jon C. Gustafson to the Planning
Commission from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2013.
Alison G. Webster submitted her resignation from the Planning Commission effective
February 9, 2009, which will be submitted to the City Council on February 17, 2009 for
acceptance.
The Council adopted Resolution 09-04 on February 3, 2009, approving the appointment
of Jon C. Gustafson as alternate to the Planning Commission should there be a
vacancy before May 31, 2009, and appointed Mr. Gustafson to a four year term on the
Planning Commission from June 1, 2009 through May 13, 2013.
The Committee therefore recommends appointment of Jon C. Gustafson for the
remainder of the four year term on the Planning Commission ending May 31, 2009.
17
Council Report
01/26/09
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-11
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. { '
Reviewed by:_
City At ney
Alex f-ntyre
City Manager
18
RESOLUTION 09-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Olson and
Jordan, and Julia Glisson, Chair of the Planning Commission, met on January 22, 2009,
to interview candidates for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Jon C.
Gustafson be appointed to the Planning Commission should either of the current
Planning Commissioners whose terms end May 31, 2009 resign prior to the end of their
terms, and also to a four year term from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2013.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 09-04 on February 3, 2009 appointing
Jon C. Gustafson as alternate to the Planning Commission should there be a vacancy
on the Planning Commission through May 31, 2009, and appointed Jon C. Gustafson to
a four-year term on the Planning Commission from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2013;
WHEREAS, the resignation of Alison G. Webster was submitted on February 9, 2009
from the Planning Commission effective immediately,
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointment of Jon C. Gustafson to fill the
vacancy as recommended by the Interview Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego approves the appointment of Jon C. Gustafson to the Planning
Commission for the remainder of a four-year term ending May 31, 2009.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 17th day of February, 2009
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Resolution 09-11 Page 1 19
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney f
20 Resolution 09-11 Page 2
4.2. 1
01
O,Al CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
cz: =7COUNCIL REPORT
Ok(GOt,
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resignation of Alison Webster from the Planning Commission
DATE: February 10, 2009
ACTION
Approve the resignation of Allison Greene Webster from the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Webster letter dated February 8, 2009
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Revie by:
Alex Mc tyre
City Manager
21
Alison Greene Webster
15476 Brianne Ct.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035t
greeneweb@hotmail.com FEB 9 2009
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
February 8, 2009
Mayor Jack Hoffman
City of Lake Oswego
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Mayor Hoffman:
Please accept my resignation from the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
effective February 9, 2009. A recent increase in my professional and personal
responsibilities have limited my time and availability for other matters. This makes it
necessary for me to resign my position on the Planning Commission a few months shy of
the end of my term this May. I am glad to hear,however,that the Council has found a
qualified person to replace me. I know how much the Planning Commission has on its
plate for the foreseeable future.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my nearly eight years as a member of the Planning
Commission. It has been rewarding working with the other commissioners and the City's
fabulous planning staff. Best of luck to you,the City Council and the Planning
Commission as you tackle the challenges facing our wonderful city.
Since ely,
•
Alison Greene Webster
Cc: Julia Glisson, Planning Commission Chair
23
4.3
la°
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGO$
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
DATE: February 10, 2009
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 20, 2009, regular meeting
2. January 27, 2009, special meeting
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Reviewed by:
Alex D. clnt e
City Manager
25
/``1�O,IfC
°\ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGMINUTES
` ANE O,,W 1 January 20, 2009
1
___;
OREc.c.
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. on
January 20, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin (5:50), Moncrieff, Olson,
Tierney, and Johnson
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician; Bill Baars, Library
Director; Ed Wilson, Fire Chief; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane
Heisler, LOIS Communication Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director;
Kevin McCaleb, Water Conservation Specialist
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Hoffman convened an Executive Session at 5:38 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660(2) (h) to
consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current
litigation or litigation likely to be filed. He reviewed the Executive Session parameters.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hoffman reconvened the open session at 6:10 p.m.
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Employee Excellence Awards
Mayor Hoffman explained that the City created the Employee Excellence Awards program last fall
in order to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of its employees in five categories: Safety
&Wellness, Customer Service, Sustainability, Heroism, and Special Accomplishments. He
reviewed the nomination and evaluation process, noting that each recipient would receive a
commemorative trophy and have his/her name etched in a plaque displayed in City Hall.
Mayor Hoffman presented the awards to Kimble Harless (Safety &Wellness), Roger Shepherd
(Customer Service), Jeff Harmon (Heroism), and Officer Jeff Oliver (Special Accomplishments).
Pete Martell (Sustainability) was not present.
Mr. McIntyre reviewed the outstanding accomplishments, and thanked each recipient. Mr. Harless
(IT Department assigned to the Library) helped keep the library patrons safe by his help in the
apprehension of a suspect who was using the library's computer illegally. Mr. Shepherd (GIS
Office) provided exceptional customer service to both internal and external customers.
Mr. Harmon saved an employee's life by performing the Heimlich maneuver when the employee
was choking. Officer Oliver epitomized the characteristics of a true law enforcement officer and
professional in his varied avenues of work, including safety instruction, crash reconstruction, and
grant writing. Mr. Martell started a beverage container recycling program at Westlake Park, which
saved the City money and made it more sustainable, and which has since spread to other parks.
3.2 Lake Oswego Reads Overview
Mr. Baars said that the Library began the Lake Oswego Reads program three years ago under the
leadership of Cyndie Glazier, Steering Committee Chair. He explained that the program goal was
to strengthen civic pride, to foster discussion among residents, and to bring the community
together through the common bond of reading. He reviewed the four selection criteria.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13
January 20, 2009
27
He mentioned several of the over 30 events occurring in February that was scheduled in
conjunction with this year's book, Stubborn Twig. He spoke of the community event sponsors and
participating community organizations. He encouraged community members to participate, and
directed interested viewers to the Library's website for more information.
He confirmed to Councilor Jordan that, while the Steering Committee alone made the selection in
prior years, this year the Library participated in a statewide book selection as part of the Oregon
Sesquicentennial celebration. However, next year they would return to doing their own book.
3.3 Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Update (LOIS)
Mr. Komarek reported that staff has been working with the contractor selected for the Kelok/Bryant
Road project, and anticipated starting construction within the next two weeks. Staff also completed
the pre-qualification process for interested lake full work contractors. In addition, staff was
finalizing the design and bidding documents for the lake full work, with a bid period scheduled from
February 2 through March 19.
He discussed the parallel track of working on the contract for the design of a new pump station
located just south of Bryant Road and west of the main canal. He mentioned that the Woodside
Community Association, which owned the land, was also interested in sustainability. As a result of
their comments, staff was working with the architect to create a green roof pump station, which
would be the first of its kind in Lake Oswego. He indicated that staff was moving forward with the
process for purchasing the stainless steel wire rope and submerged manholes.
Ms. Heisler mentioned meeting with five realty groups this month, with one more meeting to go.
She noted that the LOIS staff interview was now up on the website, as was an in-house video.
She spoke of the "Meet the Contractor' meeting for the Maple and Kelok neighbors, at which staff
informed the neighbors how the project would progress, starting later this week. She commented
that staff was working on an official project kickoff celebration.
She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that they would provide the police and fire departments with
updates every week on the construction location, so that they could keep track of what kind of
access they had in the construction area.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that as of today, the project was on time and on
budget. He commented that, with the downturn in the economy, staff expected to see beneficial
competition in the marketplace in terms of the City's anticipated costs.
At Councilor Tierney's request, Ms. Heisler reviewed staff's proposed methods for
communicating with the neighbors in advance of and during construction. She said that they have
already gone door-to-door on Maple Circle, and would soon start going door-to-door on the
northerly section of the three sections of Kelok. She mentioned also collecting a substantial e-mail
list.
Councilor Tierney asked what staff was hearing from the citizens that the Council should be
aware of. Ms. Heisler said that the most discussed topic at the "Meet the Contractor" meeting was
trees. The City has to do some trimming in order to accommodate the equipment, but it would not
do more trimming than needed, although many residents would like to see additional pruning by
the City. Staff would also remove one dead tree.
3.4 Adoption of Council Goals
3.5 Emergency Response Report-an opportunity will be provided for public comment
Chief Wilson reported on the City's response to the recent 40-year storm, which occurred over a
three-week period. He said that there were 11 consecutive days of snow leading up to Christmas,
with snowfall in Lake Oswego ranging from 12 to over 25 inches. In addition, there was an
extended period when the temperature did not get above freezing.
He noted that the floods and landslides event followed hard upon the snow and ice event. In
addition, the high winds uprooted many trees. He indicated that, while virtually every City
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13
January 20, 2009
28
department had employees working during the storm, his report would focus on the Public Works
Department and emergency responders.
He reported that the Public Works Department plowed snow 24 hours a day for two straight weeks,
using four sanding trucks and snow plows. He noted the street order priority: arterials and
emergency response routes, feeder streets, and local streets. He mentioned that Public Works
contracted with a private provider to assist with snow plowing. He commented that it would take
Public Works an estimated three weeks to pick up the 1,200 tons of gravel spread throughout the
city.
He discussed the two main challenges during the flood and landslide event. The sewer interceptor
overflowed, sending approximately 226,000 gallons of wastewater out of the system, but
Maintenance captured approximately 75% of that, using a fleet of five vacuum trucks, and returned
it to the system. The second main challenge was the Woodhurst landslide on January 2. Public
Works helped greatly by providing engineers to evaluate the house, and a private geotech to
evaluate the hillside.
He reported on the greatly increased call volumes received by Public Works and the emergency
responders. Public Works received approximately 953 service requests, while the Fire Department
experienced a 111% increase in call volume from two weeks before. He stated that the City's
emergency responders made it to all of the emergency calls that came through Dispatch. He
credited the street clearing work of the Public Works Department in making that possible.
He noted the excellent work by the Police Department in clearing cars and TriMet buses blocking
access to passable streets, and in providing security at the Woodhurst landslide. He described the
broad variety of services that the police provided to Lake Oswego citizens during the event, which
ranged from carrying firewood to residences to shoveling snow to providing transportation to
stranded residents. He commended Police Chief Duncan for driving several hundred miles to bring
employees to and from work in order to have appropriate staff on site.
He compared the activity on the busiest day, December 22, to the activity on November 22. While
there was a 329% increase in call volume overall, December 22 alone saw a 193% increase in call
volume. He mentioned that the Police Department had 36 more hazardous situation calls than
usual. He commended the LOCOM dispatchers for their excellent work in triaging calls.
He commended the Adult Community Center staff for finding volunteers and a vehicle to deliver
meals to shut-ins and other senior citizens who depended on those meals. He emphasized that
the ACC did not miss delivering even one meal during the storm.
He mentioned the timely information provided by the Citizen Information Center through the Citizen
Information Line and the City website. He noted the City's use of CodeRed to notify residents in
the areas affected by the wastewater overflow and the Woodhurst landslide. He reported that
Clackamas County was close to meeting FEMA's minimum threshold for reimbursement for the
snowstorm, which meant that the Finance Department might be able to recoup some of the storm
costs. He indicated that the cost, as of January 13, was $135,000, but there would probably be
more costs to add in to it.
He discussed the lessons the City learned during this event in the three key areas of command,
control, and communications. He indicated that they had the right people in place with the right
skill sets to manage the incident (command and control). He mentioned that communications, both
internally in the organization and externally with the citizens, was always the most challenging
component during an emergency.
He presented the staff analysis of resource needs, and their conclusion that they had adequate
equipment and staffing to work the event, while pointing out that this was a 40-year storm event.
He mentioned that staff had looked into additional resources from the County or State, and found
nothing available. He spoke to making sure that the Adult Community Center had access to a four-
wheel vehicle in order to deliver meals.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13
January 20, 2009
29
He commented that while they did use the Adult Community Center as a warming center, Council
needed to make a policy decision on whether to use it as such. If so, then they needed more staff
training and outfitting of it as a warming center.
He suggested updating the City's outdated 20-year-old emergency operations plan soon. He
mentioned that he had recommended to the County that it hire a contractor to help facilitate the
update of emergency operations plans in order to dovetail city plans with the County's plan. He
indicated that staff was in the process of updating the City's 2004 Natural Hazard and Mitigation
Plan, which they would sync up with the County's plan.
He reported the finding that they needed to do a better job on employee expectations. He
suggested that each department identify essential and non-essential personnel, which might be
different for each incident. He spoke of educating employees on what their roles and
responsibilities were in these situations.
He observed that they also needed to address community expectations, and communicate to
community and business leaders what the City could and could not do in an event like this. He
encouraged citizens to be proactive and learn how to take of themselves in their neighborhoods,
utilizing programs such as CERT (Citizen Emergency Response Teams), and businesses to
develop emergency plans.
He reported that the good news was that there were no reports of significant injuries to the staff,
even as they worked hard in some terrible conditions. He indicated that the lack of reports of
damaged cars from snowplows was a tribute to the skill of the snowplow drivers. He reiterated that
the LOCOM operators did a wonderful job triaging calls and dispatching police and fire.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Hennagin addressed several questions to Ms. Papadopoulos. He mentioned hearing
conflicting accounts regarding the equipment used. Ms. Papadopoulos clarified that the City had
three all-wheel drive snowplows and one two-wheel drive snowplow. She said that they used the
two-wheel drive only part of the time, as it lacked the traction of the other vehicles, but it was
usable on the flatter areas. She confirmed that the Marmon, the oldest snowplow, died during the
event. She stated that while they may not have had all their snowplows out at any given moment,
during the course of the event, they did use all of them.
She clarified that the sanding trucks and snowplows overlapped each other. Two sanding trucks
were two-wheel drive, one sanding truck did not have a snowplow attachment, and one snowplow
would not work as a sanding truck.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned hearing that many people were disgruntled about not being able
to get out of their homes for an extended period of time. He commented that the City's inability to
clear all the streets during this event did not disturb him, as it would be counter-productive for the
City to stockpile sufficient equipment to deal with a 40-year event.
Ms. Papadopoulos indicated to the Councilor that, while it might have been possible to borrow
equipment from further south where the storm did not hit as hard, staff did not check that out. She
mentioned working through the Fire Department to try to find additional resources, once the County
declared an emergency, but nothing was available. Therefore, staff hired a private contractor to
help them.
She clarified that replacing the Marmon's engine would cost around $10,000 in parts and labor.
The City originally bought the used truck for $6,000 with the intention of using it until it died, which
it now has. She indicated that they did not expect to repair it.
Mayor Hoffman referenced e-mails he has received regarding the staff work during the storm. He
commended Ms. Papadopoulos and her crew for the incredible job they did.
Councilor Moncrieff thanked Public Works, Police, Fire, and Parks & Recreation for doing an
outstanding job in getting the city through this event. She asked if there was any way to prevent
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13
January 20, 2009
30
the icy ruts that formed on some roads that caused some cars to get high centered. Ms.
Papadopoulos pointed out that that had not been a problem in Lake Oswego, but due to the great
variability in the snow and ice conditions around the Portland metro area, it was a problem
elsewhere.
Ms. Papadopoulos explained that Oregon Department of Transportation brought in plows with the
right kind of blade from the Mt. Hood area to deal with the problem, but no one had a way of
preventing it because there were so many variables involved in creating the icy ruts, including the
mix of snow and ice and how the cars worked that mixture. She said that Lake Oswego's plows
were rubber-tipped and not effective in deep, heavy snow or in significant ice.
She explained that, in order to use the proper equipment for ice removal, they would have to
redesign the roads and lower the manholes below pavement level. Otherwise, the blades were
damaged when they caught on the manhole covers.
Councilor Jordan commended staff for its work. She concurred that the City did not have
sufficient first responders to take care of everyone's needs in a major emergency response event.
She supported the City finding ways for the neighborhood and business associations to connect
during such an event. She encouraged person-to-person networking and contact trees for both
neighborhoods and businesses, especially when the Internet service went out, as it did for her for
three and a half weeks. She agreed that the City needed to make sure that whichever building(s) it
selected as an emergency shelter(s) was adequately equipped and had trained staff to handle the
situation.
Chief Wilson concurred. He commented on the importance of training citizens to take care of
themselves, noting the over 500 citizens who have participated in CERT training. He agreed that
the Adult Community Center did not lend itself as a shelter but more as a warming facility. He
mentioned that staff was in contact with the American Red Cross, which did have the trained staff
and the ability to provide shelters, but Lake Oswego did not have many people looking for shelter
during this storm.
Ms. Papadopoulos indicated to Councilor Tierney that she was not aware of any objective
standard established to determine the passability of streets. She commented that she thought
street passability was driven by what a community wanted to invest in as a resource for the size of
the event.
Councilor Tierney commended the staff's hard work. He spoke to making sure that they were
working smart in these types of rare storms. He asked what staff would have done differently in
this event. Ms. Papadopoulos commented that she did not know that there was a good answer to
that question. She acknowledged that some of the equipment was old, but speculated that the
Marmon would have survived a lesser storm.
Ms. Papadopoulos pointed out that equipment that sat for long periods of time was unreliable and
often needed repair before deployment. She discussed the issues around replacing the Marmon,
including not replacing it in kind but with an all-wheel drive dump truck with a variety of possible
uses, so that it could be out on the road more frequently. She mentioned the possibility of quick
coupling a snowplow blade to a front-end loader for more flexibility, as the contractor did and his
equipment moved faster than the City's snowplows. She emphasized that their intent was to be
more flexible with the equipment in trying to make it more usable.
Ms. Papadopoulos indicated to Councilor Tierney that the City's rubber-tipped plow blades could
not plow to the pavement in icy conditions. The plows started picking up snow at one to two
inches, but if the snow was wet and heavy, then the plows could not move it.
Mayor Hoffman opened the meeting to public comment. There was none.
Councilor Jordan asked if there were any streets in the city that Chief Wilson felt they could not
get to with four-wheel drive, chained vehicles in the event of an emergency. Chief Wilson said
that while they did get to all the calls to which they were dispatched, he did have some concerns
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13
January 20, 2009
31
about situations such as large condominium complex parking lots, which were not the City's
responsibility to clear.
He explained that the long-standing practice was that battalion chiefs and police officers reported
any streets they saw with passability concerns to Public Works, which dispatched sanding trucks
and snowplows immediately upon the request. Ms. Papadopoulos indicated that Public Works
worked with the Fire Department to identify any streets that they considered emergency response
routes, even if not an arterial.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hoffman reviewed the consent agenda.
Councilor Hennagin raised a procedural question with respect to adopting the minutes of a prior
Council, as four of the new Council members did not attend the meetings. Mr. Powell explained
that since a vote on the minutes meant that a Council member agreed that the minutes were an
accurate reflection of the meeting, but not that the Council member agreed with the actions taken
at the meeting, the new Council members could vote on them. He noted that anyone could abstain
from the vote if he/she so desired.
Councilor Hennagin indicated that his review of the minutes found them to be an accurate
reflection of the meeting. Councilor Olson pointed out that she did attend all the meetings.
Councilor Johnson moved approval of the consent agenda. Councilor Jordan seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors
Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' (7-0)
4.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.1.1 December 1, 2008, special meeting
4.1.2 December 2, 2008, morning meeting
4.1.3 December 2, 2008, regular meeting
4.1.4 December 9, 2008, special meeting
4.1.5 December 15, 2008, special meeting
4.1.6 December 16, 2008, regular meeting
4.1.7 December 29, 2008, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. McIntyre introduced the new Finance Director, Darin Rouhier. He reviewed Mr. Rouheir's
work experience in finance in both the private and public sectors. He mentioned that he was a
Lake Oswego resident. The Council welcomed Mr. Rouhier.
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
There was none.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Ordinance 2533, a special Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego vacating a portion of
the south side of Fairway Road
Mayor Hoffman declared that he had a proprietary membership in the Oswego Lake Country Club.
Councilor Johnson declared that her father was newly elected to the Country Club Board of
Trustees. Mr. Powell recommended that the two Council members recuse themselves as having a
direct or potential conflict of interest.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13
January 20, 2009
32
Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Johnson stepped down at 7:21 p.m. Council President Jordan
took over the meeting. There were no other declarations of conflict of interest.
Mr. Powell reviewed the standard hearing procedures and the testimony time limits. He
recommended allowing the applicant and his attorney the usual 10 minutes allowed for the
applicant.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Graham presented the staff report (pp.85-94). He said that this right-of-way vacation
addressed an existing problematic situation for both the City and the adjacent property owners. He
explained that existing City utility lines encroached on private property. In exchange for the
vacation, the Country Club would dedicate sufficient land to ensure a minimum 40-foot right-of-way
for Fairway Road.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Graham explained to Councilor Tierney that `reserving the easement' referred to keeping the
opportunity open for private utilities, such as PGE or telecommunications companies, to put their
infrastructure in the easement. He explained that this vacation and consequent dedication of other
property would center up the pavement and make the road alignment work better for all parties.
He referred Councilor Olson to Mr. Condit for an explanation of how this problem was discovered.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
APPLICANT
• Jeff Condit, Miller Nash LLP, attorney representing applicant, Oswego Lake Country Club
He explained that the City right-of-way currently ran through the front yards of the Dudley and
Boutwell properties, but the City utilities lay outside that right-of-way. Essentially, this City right-of-
way vacation on private property, and the Country Club dedication for right-of-way of the land
under which the utilities actually ran, would move the right-of-way over to where it belonged, on top
of the utilities.
He indicated that the Country Club discovered this misalignment of right-of-way while addressing a
storm drainage facility problem. Their research into whether their offsite detention facility was
located in a storm drainage maintenance easement, as required by the City, discovered that their
1923 detention pond was located primarily in public right-of-way. In seeking to solve the problem,
they developed this solution, which should bring the records into compliance with what was
actually on the ground.
• Dennis Gemitsky, Lake Oswego Country Club General Manager
He thanked Mr. Powell and Mr. Chevrette for their work.
Mr. Condit confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that nothing would actually change on the ground.
The solution was to change the deed records (dating from the 1920s) to reflect the actual situation
existing today.
Council President Jordan closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Tierney moved to enact Ordinance 2533. Councilor Olson seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Council President Jordan, Councilors
Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (5-0)
Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Johnson rejoined the Council. Mayor Hoffman took back the
gavel.
8. REPORTS
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13
January 20, 2009 33
8.1 Public Improvement Contract for the Parks and Facilities Restroom Fixture
Replacement(Work Order 108)
Councilor Jordan moved to award a public improvement contract to Bourke Construction,
Inc., in the amount of$121,569.00 for the Parks and Facilities Restroom Fixture
Replacement Project. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion.
Mr. McCaleb presented the staff report (pp.95-97). He explained that in 2008 as part of the Water
Conservation Program, staff conducted an inventory of restroom fixtures in all City-owned facilities
to identify those fixtures functioning below current EPA standards. He described the staff process
in reaching consensus to propose upgrading City facilities with new fixtures before the end of this
fiscal year.
He noted the project scope to replace 96 substandard lavatory faucets with metered low flow
faucets in all City parks and public buildings, to replace (30) 1-gallon per flush urinals with 1 pint
per flush urinals, and to replace (87) 2.5 to 3.5 gallons per flush toilets with 1.6 gallon per flush,
dual flush toilets. He indicated that the combined reduced water consumption at the City as a
result of these replacements would be approximately 1.5 million gallons. He noted that the funding
came from the Water Fund.
He recommended awarding the contract to the low bidder, Bourke Construction, Inc., for $121,569.
Mr. McCaleb answered several questions from Councilor Hennagin. He indicated that
approximately 80% of the toilets and all the urinals in public facilities complied with current EPA
standards. He explained that he used the broad EPA and industry standards in estimating the
water consumption savings of 1.5 million gallons. He said that, with a money savings of $3,800
per year in utility costs, it would take 27 years for the City to regain the cost of installing these
fixtures.
He clarified that the only public facilities that the study did not look at were Luscher Farm (because
of historical preservation concerns), and the wastewater treatment plant (which lay in another
municipality and would be upgraded soon anyway).
Councilor Hennagin expressed his concern about replacing equipment in buildings that the
Council has not yet decided to keep or not keep. He questioned whether they could justify the
expenditure with that unknown.
Mr. McCaleb pointed out that all these fixtures were reusable. If the City decided to tear down a
building, it could take these state-of-the-art fixtures out and use them somewhere else. He
commented that staff saw this as a good first step for the City to take towards the kind of water
conservation that it was asking of the citizens. Councilor Hennagin acknowledged the need to
set an example, but observed that they also needed to be careful about how they spent their
money.
Councilor Olson asked how many fixtures actually needed replacement because they were old or
broken. Mr. McCaleb explained that they selected for replacement any toilet that exceeded the
1993 EPA standard of 1.6 gallons per flush. He indicated that, given the variety and inconsistency
of the urinals in public facilities, staff decided to replace all the urinals with the same low flow urinal
for consistency throughout the city.
Mr. McCaleb indicated to the Councilor that he saw a good balance of facility usage by citizens
throughout the year. He pointed out that Parks & Recreation facilities had higher use during the
summer, while the Adult Community Center and City Hall had a higher usage during the winter.
He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the bid included the fixtures themselves.
Councilor Tierney observed that a 27-year payback was not a good financial payback. He said
that, as he thought this was an admirable project, he would support it.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that there were cities that subsidized low flow toilet purchases for
their citizens, and received no financial payback at all. She acknowledged that spending $122,000
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13
January 20, 2009
34
on new toilets might seem like casual spending in these economic times, but argued that the value
added (should they sell the building), the ability to reuse the fixtures (should they close the
building), and the water savings realized made the project worthwhile. She pointed out that it also
sent the message that the City was modeling the water conservation behavior that it was asking of
its citizens.
Councilor Hennagin referenced his previously stated support for the City being a leader in water
conservation. He spoke of replacing the fixtures in all the parks facilities, in the Maintenance
Department, and in the fire stations. He reiterated his concern about replacing fixtures in City Hall,
the Library, the Adult Community Center, and the West End Building when the public has
expressed concern that the City had more facilities than necessary, and the Council has not yet
decided what to do with those buildings.
He questioned the advisability of installing commercial type fixtures in those four facilities. He
pointed out that, while those fixtures were reusable, there would be no need for them if the City
already replaced fixtures in other buildings, and the City would then have to store them. He stated
that he would vote to replace the fixtures in the facilities that they knew they were keeping, but not
in those facilities under study.
Councilor Moncrieff agreed that it was important for the City to model water conservation if it
expected its citizens to conserve water. She said that she shared Councilor Hennagin's concern
about replacing fixtures in facilities that the City might not be keeping. She asked if they could do
the replacements in stages, starting with the parks restrooms and facilities that they knew they
would keep.
Councilor Jordan spoke in support of switching out the fixtures even in buildings that the Council
was studying because, given the process involved, Council would not make any decisions for quite
some time. In the meantime, the inefficient fixtures wasted treated water that could be used
elsewhere, and the right thing to do was to replace the fixtures.
Councilor Olson expressed her preference to prioritize this sort of request as part of the big
picture during the upcoming budget process. She indicated that she did see some benefit to the
staging suggested by Councilor Moncrieff and doing the parks facilities now.
Councilor Johnson concurred with staging the replacements. She held that it was important for
the Council to follow through on replacing this small portion of the overall City fixtures, as it has
been talking about replacements for some time. She indicated that she supported the request
because the Council has made a commitment to water conservation through its membership in the
Regional Water Providers Consortium, the Joint Water Agreement with Tigard, and as a general
principle of sustainability.
Mr. Komarek pointed out that if one made a decision about conservation based on the business
model of a payback period for retrofitting existing plumbing fixtures, then one would quickly
conclude, why bother? He spoke to looking at the longer-term societal cost of wasting water, given
the reality of ever more constrained water resources in Oregon due to fishery issues and global
climate change. He observed that, with the cost of water increasing, the payback period would
shorten over time.
He stated that the objective was to reduce water consumption and reduce the amount of water that
went down the waste stream in both the government and private sectors, which was a benefit to
the community. He emphasized that these fixtures were salvageable and on the leading edge of
technology. He encouraged the Council, in making its decision, to consider that the goal was to
save water.
Councilor Tierney suggested identifying which fixtures were replaced as a marketing technique.
He concurred with Mr. Komarek's comments about sustainability. He pointed out that if they had to
store the salvaged fixtures, they could then provide them at low or no cost to other users. He
emphasized that this was an opportunity for the City to step forward and prove its support of
sustainability.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13
January 20, 2009
35
Mr. McCaleb indicated to Councilor Hennagin that all of the fixtures in the West End Building met
EPA standards and none needed replacing.
Councilor Hennagin reiterated that, while he supported replacing the fixtures in the parks, fire
stations, and the West End Building, he did not think it advisable to replace fixtures in City Hall, the
Library, or the Adult Community Center.
Councilor Johnson argued that within the overall system, they were only replacing a small
number of toilets. She held that this was something that needed to happen. She commented that
she did not care about recouping any money as long as they were saving water.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that Councilor Jordan made a compelling argument that, even if
they sold a building with new fixtures, it was the right thing to do to start using less water as soon
as possible.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan,
Moncrieff, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' Councilors Hennagin and Olson voted 'no.'
(5-2)
8.2 Council appointments to the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Agreement Oversight
Committee
Mr. Komarek explained that the intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tigard for the joint
water supply project required each city to appoint two elected officials to the Oversight Committee,
and two technical staff to the Technical Committee. He mentioned a kick-off meeting in mid-
February. He asked the Council to appoint to of its members to the Oversight Committee.
Mayor Hoffman noted that the Council discussed this at goal setting and made a tentative
selection.
Councilor Jordan moved to appoint Councilors Johnson and Tierney to represent the City
on the Oversight Committee established by the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Supply
Agreement. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the
motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson,
Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' (7-0)
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
Councilor Moncrieff encouraged neighborhood associations and other groups to schedule
Assistant Fire Chief Larry Goth's presentation on emergency preparedness. She mentioned
learning at his presentation to the Palisades Neighborhood Association that any citizen could input
his/her home and cellphone number into the City's emergency notification system, CodeRed, via
the City's website. She emphasized the importance of citizens getting CERT (Citizen Emergency
Response Team) training.
Councilor Jordan announced a public hearing at Metro on February 12 regarding the 2010/2013
flex fund allocations. She mentioned that JPACT has not even seen the final list of
recommendations for surface transportation projects. She directed citizens to Metro's website for
more information.
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.2 City Attorney
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13
January 20, 2009
36
10.2.1 Resolution 09-02, adopting Council procedures (Administrative Procedure No. 5)
Mr. Powell indicated that Resolution 09-02 amended the City Council Rules of Procedure to reflect
the only three changes proposed during Council discussions on procedures that would affect the
already adopted Council rules. He mentioned the Council's tentative decision to change the
starting time of the regular first and third Tuesday meetings from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. The
second change was to change the time limit for citizen comment from three minutes to five
minutes, while retaining the Mayor's discretion to extend that time limit. The third change was to
change the vote order in a roll call vote from a rotating vote order to the Mayor always voting first,
and then the Councilors voting in a rotating order.
Councilor Hennagin moved adoption of Resolution 09-02. Councilor Olson seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors
Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting `aye.' (7-0)
10.2.2 2009 Legislative Session
Mr. Powell mentioned the City Manager's suggestion to form an Intergovernmental Relations
Group among staff to take on legislative matters. He reviewed the current procedure for dealing
with legislative issues. Staff advised the Council when they received legislative alerts on matters
of interest to the City. The Council took up any matters that it felt it should take a position on.
He noted that the Council could also request the City's legislators to introduce bills that were
specific to the City's interests. He indicated that the first deadline for doing so for this legislative
session was February 2.
• Minors in Possession Law change
Mr. Powell mentioned the municipal judge's support of changing a law effective a year ago that
required a mandatory one-year license suspension for minors convicted of alcohol possession.
The judge reported that he saw this suspension as out of balance with other laws, such as a first
offense driving under the influence of intoxicants for non-minors involved a diversion program and
no suspension. The judge was hearing from parents that the sentence seemed unfair.
Mr. Powell reviewed the two concepts suggested by the judge for consideration. The first concept
was a deferred sentence in a first offense situation, and the second was a restrictive license for 30
days, such as the minor could only drive from school and work between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Another
possibility was a 30-day suspension on a first offense and a one-year suspension for second
offenses.
He mentioned the concern that the legislature might be reluctant to change a bill that passed only a
year ago with a fair amount of support. He spoke of identifying what other groups and interests
might support this sort of change and participate in getting the change through the legislature. He
reported that the judge said that he did not have time to take the lead on this, although he felt that
the Municipal Judges Association might support it.
He indicated that it was up to the Council to decide whether it made more sense to wait for the next
session and build support during the interim in order to have a better chance of the bill passing, or
to commit the staff resources to organizing support for this legislative session.
Councilor Hennagin concurred that the bill had little chance of passing this year. He suggested
that Judge Shepley see if there would be support for the bill in the Municipal Judges Association,
rather than the City of Lake Oswego asking its legislators to introduce the bill.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that the ethics bill passed in the last session, yet they were going to
change it because of the hue and cry over it. She clarified that this law meant that the minor was
caught with alcohol, not that he/she was driving while drunk. She expressed her concern that the
sentence was about punishment, and not about intervention, such as direction to a diversionary
program. She said that she thought it worthwhile to look into changing the law, even if it did not
pass.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13
January 20, 2009 37
Councilor Olson asked for the police chief's opinion. Chief Dan Duncan said that he has talked
with Judge Shepley about this issue. He mentioned how difficult it would be for cities to track the
minors who received citations, and how many citations each has received. He commented that the
right direction to go might be to garner support from the professional associations for the idea that
educating the kids might be better than punishing them.
Mr. Powell mentioned that the judge's latest suggestion to restrict or suspend the license for a
shorter time on first offense would help with the tracking issue, as that would go on the DMV record
which a municipal judge in another jurisdiction would see. Chief Duncan was not certain that
would help with minor possession, as each jurisdiction in the Metro area had their own records
management system.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that Clackamas County was involved in developing an integrated
approach to maintaining a database for minors in possession. Chief Duncan said that the judge's
research found that only Eugene had a program dealing with minors in possession.
Mr. Powell indicated that both he and the judge did not think that Lake Oswego could go to
deferred sentencing on its own. He mentioned the concern that if it did so, it would give the
impression that Lake Oswego did not take juvenile drinking seriously. He said that the judge's
impression was that that was why other courts have not done it either. A legislative change would
help change that impression.
Chief Duncan mentioned that the Lake Oswego Police Department had zero tolerance and gave
out no warnings for juvenile drinking or possession. He spoke of being careful about what
message the City sent to its officers.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he thought it would be better for the Municipal Court Judges
Association to take the lead on this than Lake Oswego.
Mr. Powell reviewed the four options before the Council: support the change and direct staff to
rally support with Lake Oswego taking the lead, support the change if a different group took the
lead, support the concept, take it up in the future, and ask the judge to work with other groups in
the meantime, or say that the Council was not interested.
The Council agreed on the third option as its preferred option. Mr. Powell indicated that he would
inform the judge that the Council would be interested in supporting the change but it encouraged
the judge to develop a coalition of support and return for the next legislative session.
• City Attorneys' Work Group
Mr. Powell recalled that the Council sent a letter in opposition to the Starz Cabaret (nude dancing)
proposal to locate in Tualatin, near the border of Lake Oswego. He reported that the Tualatin
mayor has pushed for a City Attorney work group to discuss the possibility of a potential legislative
referral of a constitutional amendment that allowed the zoning of adult businesses separately from
other types of businesses. He said that he has been invited to join the work group.
He noted that he would not promote such a concept without City Council approval, but tonight he
would like direction on whether the Council wanted him to spend his time exploring this idea.
He explained to Councilor Moncrieff that, under current Oregon law, a city could not zone adult
businesses differently from how it zoned other businesses with similar impacts. For instance, a city
could not exclude a nude dancing night club from a zone if it allowed other night clubs without nude
dancing in that zone. He clarified that the Tualatin concept was, not to ban adult business
establishments, but rather to allow separate zoning decisions specifically about that type of
business, such as allowing entertainment nightclubs in the downtown but not adult businesses in
the downtown. He mentioned that if it were to pass, it would give local governments more tools to
regulate adult businesses than they had today.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13
January 20, 2009
38
Councilor Olson questioned the benefit of the work for Lake Oswego. Mr. Powell pointed out that
it was conceivable that one day an application for a nude dancing establishment might come to the
City.
Mr. Powell noted that Councilor Hennagin's suggestion to create a zone in the zoning ordinance,
and then not zone any property that way in the city, was the next step, but it might go too far
without a radical amendment of the U.S. and Oregon constitutions.
Councilor Jordan commented that she thought it was a losing effort and a waste of Mr. Powell's
time. Councilor Hennagin observed that Lake Oswego created the wrong impression if it was not
willing to work with its neighbors. Mayor Hoffman supported Mr. Powell's participation in the
group.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that the sense of the Council was for Mr. Powell to participate in the
work group.
Mr. McIntyre encouraged the Council to build relationships on the federal level as well, noting the
new Senator and Congressman representing the city. He mentioned a letter to their federal
representatives for the Mayor's signature discussing the new infrastructure bill pending in
Congress, and making sure that the Feds were aware of Lake Oswego as they were looking at
handing out money for major infrastructure projects.
• Miscellaneous
The Council discussed when to hold the follow-up study session on Council goals. Mayor
Hoffman suggested January 27.
Councilor Jordan indicated that she would not be here for that meeting. She asked staff to
provide a list of the requests from groups and/or individuals that had budget implications. She
mentioned that she has not yet seen an outline of the goal information developed by the Council at
the goal setting retreat in order to know where to fit things at this point.
Mayor Hoffman explained that he asked Mr. McIntyre to hold off on organizing the goal
information until the Council received all the requests from groups and individuals. Mr. McIntyre
described the process he would use in organizing the goals, including articulating each goal,
developing a work plan, and assigning staff. He would bring that organized list to the Council on
January 27, get Councilor Jordan's input of what the Council did at the meeting, and schedule goal
adoption for February 3.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned several items that he felt still needed Council discussion, as they did
not make a decision about them on Saturday. Councilor Olson agreed that they needed to finish
up those items. Councilor Jordan suggested revisiting the goal statement format.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Robyn Christie
ON City Recorder
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13
January 20, 2009
39
of�n�e os
� wFGn CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETINGMINUTES
January 27, 2009
OREGO�
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. on
January 27, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin (6:17), Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and
Johnson (6:10); Councilor Jordan was excused
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Susan Millhauser,
Sustainability Planner; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development
Director; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Denise Frisbee, Assistant to
the Director of Community Development
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Portland Environmental Services for the
Tryon Creek Restoration Project
Ms. Gilmer gave a PowerPoint presentation of the highlights of the staff report (pp. 1-12). She
described which agency(Lake Oswego, Portland, Metro) owned which part of the property along
Tyron Creek and the Willamette River that they jointly purchased several years ago (p.5). She
recalled that Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) acquired the property in order to
restore Tryon Creek, while Metro acquired the property as part of its drive to acquire open space
with their 1995 Open Space Bond funds.
She discussed the significant regional trail connections for which this property was a key piece
(p.6). She mentioned the upcoming pedestrian bridge feasibility study (funded by a grant). She
indicated the west, middle, and east trail alignments that came out of a trail feasibility study done
several years ago (p.10). She described in detail the east alignment, which was the preferred
alignment for reasons of costs and ease of construction (p.9).
She informed the Council that this summer staff found out that BES wanted to use a portion of
Lake Oswego's property for their restoration project, which would have impacts on the preferred
bridge alignment and on a flat area close to the creek (p.2). She reported that staff has been
working closely with BES to get them to agree to redesign their project to accommodate the
pedestrian bridge.
She explained that BES' original project design would have resulted in Lake Oswego not being
able to get permits to build the bridge in the preferred place because it would eliminate the location
of the bridge pier. While the project redesign would accommodate the pedestrian bridge location, it
also meant that Lake Oswego would have to extend the bridge an extra 20 feet, which increased
the estimated $1.6 million cost of the bridge project by approximately $153,000.
She explained that BES wanted to create a more gradual slope on a steep bank as part of
improving the fish habitat. It wanted to dump the excavated dirt on a flat area on the Lake Oswego
property.
She asked the Council to decide whether it was willing to allow BES to use City property for their
project (pp.11-12). She spoke of another BES request, that the City maintain the enhancements
after 2015, which would cost the City additional resources (p.12).
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14
January 27, 2009
41
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Tierney that BES would maintain the enhancements until 2015
as part of monitoring the success of the project. She said that, while she has asked BES what the
estimated maintenance costs would be, they have not been able to tell her. She explained that
she was not certain that the City could maintain the property to BES' expectations, given the
invasive species problem there and that Lake Oswego only had 1.5 staff members dedicated to
maintaining open space, of which the City had 400 acres already.
She indicated to Councilor Olson that last year, the City hired the restoration group of the BES to
do needed habitat restoration on nine acres of the site, namely the removal of bamboo and other
non-native plants left over from the previous owner.
She described to Councilor Moncrieff what BES would do in grading along the creek. She
confirmed that staff would write the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to give the City the
flexibility to reject accepting the disposition of the soil for a variety of reasons, such as
contaminated soil, too much soil, or rocky soil.
She indicated to Councilor Tierney that she `guesstimated' eight to ten years before the City
would build the bridge. She pointed out that pedestrian bridges were expensive to build, and they
wanted to try to get federal transportation money. She commented that they first needed to get
funding to design the bridge, as she did not recommend building the bridge until they knew where it
would go. Mr. McIntyre concurred.
Councilor Tierney asked for Ms. Gilmer's opinion about BES restoration projects in the City. Ms.
Gilmer said that she has not worked with the BES engineering staff before, but she has seen good
work done in Lake Oswego city parks by the BES habitat restoration group.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that the project redesign fixed the problem of restricted
access to the storage facilities and the canoe/kayak launch points on the creek. She pointed out
that the canoe/kayak access would be challenging anyway because of the steep bank and ADA
requirements.
She explained to Councilor Hennagin that the BES project started where the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) culvert project ended. She suspected that, if Lake Oswego were to deny
use of its property for the BES project, given the number of agencies interested in the project, the
City might receive some calls. She indicated that she thought it unlikely that not helping with this
project would frustrate ODOT's work in regards to helping the fish. However, the BES project did
continue the ODOT work.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that construction would start in 2010.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he was nervous about the changes, given the opinion of the
environmental expert that the preferred bridge alignment was the most likely design that the
permitting agencies would approve (p.2). With respect to the IGA, he asked that staff pin down
where the mitigation and the soils disposition would take place. He said that he did not want to
lose the meadows, which the City purchased for open recreation, and not for mitigation.
He commented that he found it hard to believe that BES could not estimate the total volume of soil
involved until it began construction. He could tell from looking at the bank that their grading plan
would move a lot of soil. He asked if BES has approached Metro about putting soil on their
property also. Ms. Gilmer indicated that Metro appeared amenable to use of their property for
mitigation and depositing soils.
Ms. Gilmer explained that BES was at 30% on their project design right now, and would have a
better understanding of the costs as they moved forward. If the costs proved too high, then BES
would likely have to scale back the project, which would affect how much grading it would do. She
clarified that the proposal in the staff report was the maximum effect that the project would have on
the City.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14
January 27, 2009
42
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he preferred a longer monitoring period for BES, perhaps out to
2020. Councilor Olson asked what would happen if the City refused the maintenance
responsibility altogether and left it with BES. Mayor Hoffman commented that he did not want the
City to assume the replanting cost for failed plantings. He agreed that BES should own the
mitigation and the maintenance in order to ensure a continuous effort. Ms. Gilmer said that she
would ask BES that question.
Ms. Gilmer pointed out that they could leave the maintenance issue out of this IGA totally, or put in
a statement about negotiating it in the future. Councilor Olson suggested that the IGA state that
BES maintain the project until 2020, at which point Lake Oswego would negotiate concerning
maintenance.
Councilor Johnson suggested that an agreement include a provision that BES help pay for the
maintenance. She agreed that they first needed to know what the cost would be.
Ms. Gilmer confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that BES would like a signed IGA before the project
design reached 50%. She indicated that the IGA included the City having input at the 60% and
90% design stages. She said that she and Mr. Powell would work with BES on the final IGA
language and bring it back to Council for approval.
3.2 Business Recycling Requirements Program
Ms. Millhauser introduced regional sustainability partners of Lake Oswego: Rick Winterhalter,
Clackamas County, Marta McGuire, Metro, and Colleen Wellnitz and Ray Phelps, Allied Waste.
She presented highlights from the staff report (pp.13-29). She reviewed Metro's process in
developing its Business Recycling Program, which would require businesses to recycle the same
types of things that people recycled at home. She indicated that, during the course of its work on
this program, Metro found that 14% of businesses in the Metro area were not recycling or only
recycling cardboard. She described the program as formalizing what many businesses were
already doing, and mandating the last 14% of businesses choosing not to recycle, to recycle.
She discussed the outreach to Lake Oswego businesses done by the Clackamas County Recycle
at Work staff, including a recycling award that went to Realty Trust this year. She reviewed the
basic recycling tasks that the program required businesses to do.
She indicated that the main program elements were to continue business recycling as it currently
happened and to continue working with the County on outreach on a voluntary basis. She
mentioned using a set of best management practices to gauge whether a business was complying
with the program. She explained that the program understood that this was a long-term process.
It would use enforcement strategies or penalties as a last resort.
She noted the tentative roll out approach described in the staff report (pp.15-16). She said that
Metro required all cities and counties in the region to adopt an implementing ordinance by the end
of February. She indicated that funding would come primarily from Metro.
She reported meeting with Allied Waste, the County, and the Chamber last month. She mentioned
Jerry Wheeler of the Chamber liked the program's emphasis on continuing to encourage
businesses to recycle with the legal stick of enforcement as the last resort.
She reviewed the three options for the enforcement piece (pp.16-17). In Option 1, the City would
work with the County to do the enforcement. In Option 2, the City would do the enforcement by
itself. In Option 3, Metro would provide the enforcement for one year.
Councilor Moncrieff mentioned hearing from an attendee at the BRAG (Business Recycling
Awards Group) presentation to Realty Trust Group this morning that she had found it difficult to get
resources and help in bringing a recycling program to the Lake Oswego office. She speculated
that 14% of businesses might not be choosing to recycle but rather, they might not know how to do
it or where to get resources.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14
January 27, 2009 43
She commented that a February rollout with enforcement in March seemed an aggressive timeline
to her, especially since Clackamas County only one staff member working with businesses on
recycling. She emphasized the importance of getting information to the businesses before
pursuing any kind of enforcement. She pointed out that, in all three enforcement scenarios, Lake
Oswego would have to figure out how to finance the enforcement.
Ms. Millhauser clarified that they had 18 months to work on compliance before they would use the
enforcement piece. She agreed that more outreach was a key in implementing the program. She
explained that Metro has funded the program (including the enforcement piece) for four years. She
mentioned talking with the sole Lake Oswego Code Enforcement Specialist who was very busy
with the other codes. She speculated that there would be a minimal number of Lake Oswego
businesses even getting to the enforcement piece.
Councilor Hennagin asked what Metro's minimum requirements were for a city's ordinance to be
in compliance. Ms. Millhauser indicated that glass must be separated from everything else, and
that some plastics could not be recycled.
Councilor Hennagin asked how they would find out if a business was not recycling if the program
included no inspector. He pointed out that Allied Waste would not be able to identify which bins
belonged to which business, and the City could not use them to report surreptiously on businesses.
Ms. Millhauser indicated that it would be complaint-driven.
Councilor Hennagin asked about the legal process for the citations if the County or Metro handled
the enforcement. Mr. Powell indicated that if the Council adopted an ordinance similar to the
model ordinance, then the citation would go to the municipal court. He referenced his conversation
today with Metro in stating that if Metro did the enforcement, it would send the citation to a
hearings officer.
He explained that, in order to have Metro do the enforcement, the City would have to adopt Metro's
enforcement procedure into its code for the purpose of enforcing the recycling program. He said
that he would look into the pros and cons of that, including whether Lake Oswego citizens would
have to drive to Portland to the hearings officer, or the hearings officer would come to Lake
Oswego.
Ms. Millhauser confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that#6 Foam was still not recyclable at the
curbside, although there were specialty recyclers that would take it. She commented that they
would want a larger stakeholder involvement process before restricting businesses from using a
certain type of packaging.
She confirmed to Councilor Olson that the 14% referred to the entire Metro area. She said that
she did not know what Lake Oswego's percentage of compliance was, since recycling was tracked
on a County scale.
Councilor Olson commented that she believed in recycling, but she found this program excessive
and a "Big Brother" type of program. She agreed with encouraging, educating, and facilitating
recycling as much as possible, but questioned whether bringing in the last 5% was worth the bad
will that would come from this ordinance and its enforcement.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that Metro's authority on this issue came because
recycling was an issue of`regional significance,' which included natural resources, parking,
density, land use, and waste handling. Mr. Powell referenced the new chapter of Metro Code
adopted by Metro in September 2008, which required local jurisdictions to adopt a business
recycling program ordinance.
Ms. Millhauser indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the City could ask for an extension of time for
adopting the ordinance.
Mayor Hoffman referenced Metro Code section 2.6.3.3 (p.25). He asked how the City could figure
out if someone was complying. He noted the models given as the franchised hauler, a government
inspector, or self-reporting.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14
January 27, 2009
44
Councilor Hennagin asked if Allied Waste had the capacity to report. Ms. Millhauser indicated
that she thought the intention was that if an Allied Waste representative were working with a
business that refused to participate, then the hauler would report that to Metro.
Mayor Hoffman asked why this was a matter of regional significance. Marta McGuire, Metro
Sustainability Center, mentioned that the individual governments always had a lot of discussion
around the compliance issue. She said that the feedback they have received is that the
enforcement element needed to be very flexible and determined by each local government
separately in deciding what approach best suited its community. She described the approaches
under discussion at the City of Beaverton and the City of Hillsboro. She stated that the 2.6.3
section provided an array of compliance options to help cities design their own compliance
process.
Mayor Hoffman asked why Metro was even doing this. Ms. McGuire recounted Metro's increased
emphasis on business recycling, beginning with the realization in 2003 that there was a significant
lag in the business sector. At the first business recycling program recommendation, the Metro
Council decided to expand the Recycle-at-work program rather than mandate business
participation. After four years of expanded outreach and Metro's significant monetary investment
in the commercial recycling system and infrastructure, the area was seeing 100,000 tons of easily
recyclable materials still going to the land fill from businesses.
Ms. McGuire observed that, not only were 14% of businesses in the Metro area not recycling at
all, but 75% of businesses were not recycling as much as they could. She described this
mandatory compliance program as another took (in addition to education and outreach) for the
recycling specialist to use in helping businesses recycle.
Councilor Johnson mentioned that the recycling market was down to $5/ton from $100/ton. Ms.
McGuire indicated that, while they have not heard anything from the business community, they
have heard from the recycling facilities that the markets were elastic and reflected what was going
on in the economy. She said that they were watching the markets closely, in case things got so
bad that they needed to recommend delaying the program.
Ms. McGuire indicated to Councilor Johnson that the local governments, as opposed to Metro,
worked most directly with the hauling community, as they had a relationship through the franchise
agreement. She recalled that hauling community representatives did serve on the original
stakeholder work group, as well as participating on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. She
noted that the Advisory Committee did vote in favor of the program.
Councilor Tierney asked Allied Waste what role it could play in identifying businesses to the City
for enforcement.
Ray Phelps, Allied Waste Systems, 16 Touchstone, Lake Oswego, stated that Allied Waste
had no capacity to enforce the program. He emphasized that the one element of this program that
they did not want to participate in was becoming the community's garbage cop. He noted the
terrible relationship it would create between them and the customer.
He said that, after receiving and reading the report today, he found several elements in it that he
intended to discuss with Ms. Millhauser. He indicated that he would contact their corporate
attorney tomorrow to find out what Allied's liability exposure was if the company became embroiled
in an enforcement action initiated by someone else.
He pointed out that there were elements in the disposal system over which Allied had no control,
and therefore it could not determine whether a company was in compliance. He mentioned self-
haul to a recycling facility, or hiring someone else to haul material away (such as with cardboard)
as two recycling methods in particular that they could not control.
Councilor Hennagin noted another variation of an office building with several businesses sharing
the same containers. There was no way to tell who was recycling and who was not.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14
January 27, 2009
45
Mayor Hoffman asked staff to ask for an extension from Metro. He suggested that Ms. McGuire
return with Metro Councilor Collette to discuss the broader issues involved here. He suggested
inviting Sustainability Advisory Board Chair Jean Baumann to talk about how this program fit in
with sustainability as a practice. He observed that there were other ways to approach this issue
than using an ordinance and telling Allied Waste to play `cardboard cop.' He speculated that
Metro's intent was to reduce the amount of recyclables going to the landfill. He suggested that
someone work with Ms. Millhauser to develop alternative compliance options. He asked what
other communities in the region were doing.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that she preferred the carrot approach, which she thought could
be fully effective, as she had faith that Lake Oswego businesses wanted to do the right thing. She
pointed out that many businesses were so overwhelmed with the current economy that, while they
wanted to do the right thing, they could not investigate a new program at this time.
Councilor Olson concurred. She said that she understood that Metro had the authority to require
the City to do this, and the value of increasing the amount of recyclables that stayed out of landfills.
She reiterated that this seemed excessive on Metro's part.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he suspected that Metro has heard comments similar to
Councilor Olson's from other jurisdictions. He suggested that they discuss these concerns about
why Metro was regulating this when they met again. Councilor Moncrieff suggested inviting
business representatives to explain their concerns. Councilor Tierney observed that talking to
those who did not recycle would also provide valuable insight into why businesses did not recycle.
Mr. Phelps mentioned that he heard from West Linn today that the City has requested a 60-day
extension. He noted that the comments tonight were similar to what he heard at the Wilsonville
Council meeting last night.
Mayor Hoffman indicated his confidence that the City could design an alternative compliance
method that would address Councilor Olson and Moncrieff's concerns. Ms. Millhauser reported
that the Sustainability Advisory Board did discuss this program at its last meeting, and was
supportive of it.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break. He reconvened the meeting.
3.3 2009 Council Goals
Mayor Hoffman read the goals of each Board and Commission. The Council discussed those
that it felt rose to the level of a City Council goal.
• Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
The Council discussed supporting the ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of the Ironworker's
Cottage. Mr. McIntyre indicated that if this was a priority for the Council, then the $100,000 he
would need to find would not go somewhere else. He asked if there was a lesser effort that would
prevent further degradation while interested groups did fundraising.
He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the $100,000 included only the physical aspects of the
rehabilitation and not the staff time. He summarized the question as when and who was going to
pay for it.
Councilor Hennagin commented that, while he did not recall anything from the report HRAB
received indicating that the cottage was going to fall down in the next three years, he could not
remember if there was a roof problem, which would need immediate attention.
Councilor Tierney described this recommendation, not as a goal, but as part of the
comprehensive historical resources of the community and tourism, which included the furnace. He
suggested it as a target in which to invest the hotel/motel tax revenues. He spoke to not losing
track of it.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14
January 27, 2009
46
Councilor Olson concurred. She pointed out that the hotel/motel tax has been lost for years in
the general fund and not earmarked for this sort of project. She spoke to HRAB looking for another
source of funding, such as grants. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she would like to discuss
it during the budget process.
The Council discussed the formation of the Heritage Trail Task Force. Mr. McIntyre indicated to
Councilor Olson that he knew of no budget request accompanying it, other than staffing it. Mayor
Hoffman noted that it was not a Council goal, but the Council did support it and would like to hear
more details about it.
The Council discussed its continued support of the iron furnace restoration. Mr. McIntyre
mentioned that two components of the iron furnace were not funded: the Bill Gerber Memorial
Garden, and the interpretative kiosk. He suggested that HRAB raise funds to support those items.
Councilor Moncrieff agreed with HRAB doing fundraising, mentioning that the Rotary Club has
built city kiosks in the past.
• Library Advisory Board (LAB)
The Council discussed providing direction on fundraising for the library endowment fund, annual
fund, and Lake Oswego Reads. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the only Council direction that
seemed appropriate was to say 'yes' to the tasks included in the goal statement. The Council
concurred.
• Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)
The Council discussed supporting natural area park management program and planning. Mr.
McIntyre explained that both NRAB and PRAB wanted to expand the excellent work done on the
Cooks Butte Management Plan to the City's broader effort on its 600+ acres of parks and open
space. He noted that the Parks & Recreation Department could help focus those efforts.
Ms. Gilmer explained that currently the City had two separate plans for parks and recreation: the
Parks Comprehensive Plan (2002), and the Open Space Master Plan. She stated that the plans
were not useful documents because they contained no project priorities or timelines. She indicated
that she understood that NRAB and PRAB wanted to develop one document that looked at all the
parks, recreational facilities, and natural areas collectively, and that established priorities, a
timeline, and a budget process.
She clarified to Councilor Hennagin that any parks master plan they did would touch on the
natural area priorities within the park system, including Cooks Butte and Springbrook Creek Park
as well as Foothills Park.
Mr. McIntyre mentioned that Ms. Gilmer had already informed him separately of the need for a
comprehensive Parks Master Plan, and he included it in his spreadsheet.
The Council discussed the difference between master plans and parks management plans. It
concluded that a master plan, in addition to creating a vision for the future, was the
comprehensive, global look at developing over time the assets that the City owned or needed to
acquire. From that, came the management plans that focused on the strategies and tactics to
implement and/or maintain (i.e., manage) specific assets mentioned in the master plan.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the $39,000 to fund phase 2 of the Cooks Butte
Management Plan was in the proposed 2009/10 budget.
• Parks & Rec Advisory Board (PRAB)
Ms. Gilmer confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that PRAB's first goal was asking the Council to take into
consideration, during its discussion on the disposition of the West End Building (WEB), that the
building provided needed space for Parks & Recreation programs.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14
January 27, 2009 47
The Council discussed the Luscher Farm Master Plan. Ms. Gilmer pointed out that the City has
acquired 60 more acres in the area surrounding Luscher Farm since the completion of the 1997
Master Plan. She indicated that the City has seen tremendous pressure from the public to develop
those properties in ways not articulated in the Master Plan. However, the City has not done any
planning on those properties and did not know how the community wanted those properties to be
used. She said that the City needed to go through a public process to determine how the
community envisioned developing those properties.
Councilor Tierney suggested listing all the master plans and management plans that the City
needed to do, including the Comprehensive Plan update, and see what resources it had to do
them. He noted that it would probably be a budget decision.
Councilor Moncrieff questioned whether it was realistic to expect the staff to do all the facility
plans and the Luscher Farm management plan at the same time.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City would have to hire a consultant to help
with the technical aspects of the plan, as the City did not have a parks planner on staff. She
explained that this detailed level of planning required environmental planners and parks planners.
In addition, the public process for a Luscher Farm plan would be so extensive that staff would need
outside help to do it.
She confirmed that Parks & Recreation would initiate the plan and run it through PRAB. She
clarified to Mayor Hoffman that her $100,000 to $200,000 cost estimate depended on the scope of
work.
Mayor Hoffman observed that the City needed a framework within which to put all these different
requests for using these properties. Ms. Gilmer confirmed that the pressure on staff grew greater
every year. She indicated that they have been able to hold people at bay by telling them to wait
until the master planning process.
Mr. McIntyre commented that if the Council set the Luscher Farm plan as a goal, then he would
budget for it. He noted that the policy question for the Budget Committee then became what was
the trade off, or, what did they not fund by funding this plan with $150,000.
The Council discussed whether the Luscher Farm plan should be a 2009 Council goal. Ms.
Gilmer mentioned that it would take at least a year to put the plan together.
Councilor Hennagin commented that it deserved to be a goal this year.
Councilor Tierney commented that, while he could support Luscher Farm as a goal, he thought it
premature to say whether this should be a 2009 Council goal until the Council has looked at all the
proposed goals in total. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that identifying which goals were
Council priorities, and then coming back and prioritizing the priorities was fine.
Mayor Hoffman commented that once they had a dollar figure attached to these goals, they could
then prioritize the goals.
Councilor Johnson agreed with the need for more discussion and prioritization of all the plans.
She observed that it would come up during the budget discussion. She suggested setting aside
money every year to do these plans, and then seeing how many plans they could do in a year.
Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the City dedicated funds would likely pay for the infrastructure plans,
but the general fund would pay for parks plans because Parks did not have an independent
funding source. He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the general fund would also pay for the
Comprehensive Plan update.
He asked, given that the money to do the plans would come from different pots of money, how
ambitious did the Council want to be. He indicated that staff could do all six plans in the first year
(Facilities and Clean Streams were almost done anyway). While it would take a lot of resources
and effort to do so, it would also allow the City to plan things more systematically. He noted the
option of doing one or two year.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14
48 January 27, 2009
Councilor Moncrieff commented that, while it would be great if the City could do the Luscher
Farm plan, another consideration was how much the citizens could absorb, given the number and
variety of plans needed.
Mayor Hoffman asked what would happen if the Council decided not to do the plan this year. Ms.
Gilmer described her dilemma. From a technical standpoint, the priority was the Parks & Rec
Master Plan, as the document was old and unusable; staff needed to know what the community
priorities were. However, there was intense public pressure to do a Luscher Farm Master Plan
In response to Councilor Johnson's comments, Councilor Tierney said that the Council should
decide which plans to do, and then the Budget Committee could weigh in on the availability of
resources to do them.
Mayor Hoffman suggested putting it on the goal list as a preliminary goal, revisiting it once they
had the financial information, and figuring out how it worked with everything else. The Council
concurred.
Ms. Gilmer indicated that the staff would incorporate the funding for phase 5 of the George Rogers
Master Plan into the capital planning for all City capital plans. Therefore, the Council did not need
to list it as a goal for this year.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that she did not think that PRAB was asking Council
to list its goal of initiating a broad marketing effort for existing Parks & Rec health, wellness, and
fitness programs as a Council goal.
• Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
Mr. McIntyre indicated that updating the Transportation System Plan was on the goal list.
• 50+ Advisory Board
The Council discussed supporting an alternative transportation program to serve the 50+
community. Ms. Gilmer explained that the current Board, upon revisiting the shuttle pilot project
report, decided to pursue other avenues for transportation, such as a marketing effort to promote
existing transportation resources.
Councilor Hennagin wondered whether the City could get some of the economic development
funds coming from the federal government for transportation-related projects to fund the pilot
project. He commented that he thought that a shuttle program would be more effective for many
people than these other programs. Ms. Gilmer recalled that the estimated cost two years ago for
a two day a week shuttle program was $80,000 a year.
• Planning Commission
The Council discussed neighborhood planning. Mr. McIntyre indicated that neighborhood
planning was called out separately in the Council goals on the last page. He asked for clarification
on this goal. The Council discussed the allocation of available staff resources, neighborhood
expectations, and codifying plans.
Councilor Olson recalled that the clear message heard at the Planning Commission and LONAC
regarding periodic review was that the City not postpone current efforts to address community
issues in order to focus on the Comprehensive Plan update. She noted that one community issue
was the neighborhoods feeling neglected.
Ms. Frisbee commented that neighborhoods had an expectation that staff would develop overlay
zones to implement neighborhood plans. She indicated that, while staff was considering not
initiating any new plans, it was contemplating assigning staff to codify some of the adopted plans.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the five neighborhood plans in question were Glenmorrie,
Waluga, Lake Forest, Palisades, and Lake Grove.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14
January 27, 2009
49
Mr. Lashbrook indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not anticipate codifying all those plans
in one year, but staff could take on one or two at a time and work through them. He noted that the
plans were significantly different and would take varying amounts of work. Ms. Frisbee spoke of
staff developing work plans and scoping efforts with regard to those plans.
The Council agreed that it wanted staff to form a work group to discuss future neighborhood plans
and setting expectations regarding financing and keeping the Code in mind. While that was going
on, the Council did not want to start any new neighborhood plans, but it did want staff to continue
to work on implementing the existing neighborhood plans.
Councilor Tierney asked about the Community Development Code rewrite. Mr. Lashbrook
commented that, while the logical way to do the rewrite would be to complete the Comprehensive
Plan update first, so that the rewrite would incorporate any changes coming out of that process, he
thought that that would be a mistake. He explained that, given the difficulty people both internally
and externally had in using the Code, staff recommended conducting an audit of the existing Code
first in order to identify which elements were causing the problems, and then developing a work
plan to address what comes out of the audit.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he thought there was an ongoing work in progress to clarify
and simplify the Code. Mr. Lashbrook explained that, in theory, there should be an annual update
of the Code to catch ambiguities, typos, and other minor items. Unfortunately, the 2005 annual
update got bogged down in the review process, and staff was still working on it. He recalled that
Mr. Schmitz had assigned him the task of concentrating on the Code audit project, but four weeks
into that process, he learned of his upcoming appointment as Interim City Manager, and he has
never gotten back to it since.
Mr. McIntyre noted that doing the Code audit simultaneously with the Comprehensive Plan update
would run the planning staff thin. He indicated that they could add more resources depending on
what the Council's priority was. Ms. Frisbee mentioned that having someone come in from the
outside to look at the Code would be helpful in getting past the complexities and zeroing in on the
trouble spots. She spoke of partnering City planners with an outside consultant, as Hillsboro was
doing.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Olson that a Code audit might suggest including more
graphics and design guidelines, as many people have requested. She pointed out that the goal
was to make the Code more accessible and not needing different levels of interpretation.
However, it was not clear whether that was doable.
Mr. Lashbrook indicated to Mayor Hoffman that if staff finished the Code audit in 2009, then the
Council could include the Code rewrite in its next year's goals.
Councilor Tierney urged caution with respect to the numerous topics coming out of Planning and
Community Development. He spoke to making sure that they were not going in so many different
directions that they failed in all of them. Mr. McIntyre explained that quality of work and a process
well done were his goals. He indicated that he would work with staff to figure out whether they
could do this well. If not, he would return to Council with the identified problem areas.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the community visioning process was on the
Council goal list, as was the implementation of the Lake Grove Village Center Plan.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Lake Oswego would have input into
Metro's capacity analysis, which preceded its 2010 decision on the UGB, through having a staff
member on the Metro Technical Advisory Committee and his seat on MPAC. He stated that he
would continue to uphold the Comprehensive Plan policy of opposition to the urbanization of the
Stafford area.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14
January 27, 2009
50
• Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB)
The Council discussed creating a full-time sustainability position in the City Manager's Office. Mr.
McIntyre indicated that, with upcoming staffing changes, he could likely do so, but it would come
through the budget process for Council consideration. He noted that the Board's proposed goal
was vague and did not include what that person would do.
Councilor Olson spoke to having a broader goal of the Council looking at everything it did through
the lens of sustainability, similar to the Council's communication enhancement goal. Councilor
Tierney suggested adding a sustainability column next to the communication/engagement column
on the spreadsheet. Mr. McIntyre commented that he was not certain how to articulate
sustainability around some of the goals, which might give the impression that staff was not
upholding sustainability for those goals.
Mr. McIntyre concurred with Mayor Hoffman's suggestion to embed sustainability into the
communication discussion as an overall theme for the Council. He spoke of enhancing public
engagement and enhancing sustainability. Mayor Hoffman clarified that he was thinking of listing
sustainability on a separate line so that it was considered in whatever was done.
Mr. McIntyre reported that Lake Oswego was not successful in either of its two attempts to obtain
a grant last year for a car sharing service because the community would not generate sufficient
usage to sustain it.
The Council agreed that the trees for the Centennial were a goal that the Board could pursue.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:51 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
8:58 p.m.
• Community Organization Goals
Mayor Hoffman read the community organization goals. He noted that the Arts Council provided
its work plan, but no potential Council goals. He observed that they already discussed the items
on LONAC's list.
The Council discussed the Lake Corporation's request for rehabilitating the Springbrook Creek
basin. Mr. McIntyre indicated that, while Clean Streams would start to address some of the Lake
Corporation's issues, he thought that the Corporation wanted the City to go a step further in taking
a more comprehensive look. He mentioned his perception that the Corporation would like the City
to acquire the Hunt Club and fix the hydrology on that site. He said that he told them no because
they were not willing to contribute any money to the project, but he had said that they could discuss
their request with the Council.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he had not heard anything specific from Mr. O'Neill, other than
having further discussions with the Lake Corporation in 2009.
Mayor Hoffman noted that the Chamber encouraged the Council to work on economic
development, which several Councilors also advocated.
The Council discussed the Oregon Main Street program mentioned by the Downtown Business
District Association. Mr. McIntyre explained that that was a specific program within economic
development, which he had not articulated under the economic development goal because staff
needed clarity on what the Council wanted staff to do on economic development. Mayor Hoffman
commented that it was an interesting program. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would include
language reflecting the Main Street program as a tool in the City's economic development tool
chest.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the Council had an Urban Renewal 101
session coming up. If the Council wanted to reprioritize any of the urban renewal goals in light of
the current economy as suggested by the Downtown Business District Association, staff would find
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14
January 27, 2009 51
that information helpful. Mayor Hoffman suggested including a plan review as another line item
under Urban Renewal.
Lisa Shaw-Ryan, 430 Fifth Street, owner of Chuck's, Downtown Business District
Association Chair, clarified that the Main Street goal was for both the downtown and Lake Grove
areas, and that it could apply to other areas in town, such as Mountain Park and Kruse Way.
Councilor Moncrieff explained the 'Shop Local Program' and the Council's challenge to the
citizens to do all their shopping locally in Lake Oswego in February.
Councilor Hennagin observed that the Lake Grove Business District was lobbying for an urban
renewal district in its area. Mr. McIntyre noted that one of the Council goals in progress under
Lake Grove Village was to develop a financing plan, which could include tax increment financing.
Councilor Hennagin asked whether adopting the traffic plan for the Lake Grove Village Center
should be a goal. Mr. McIntyre indicated that, while the traffic plan was not called out specifically
in Council goals, the goal to continue implementation of the Plan included exploration of the
transportation piece of the plan. He confirmed to the Councilor that they were aiming to
accomplish something before the end of 2009. He noted that the public hearing was listed in the
milestones.
Mayor Hoffman observed that the Rotary Club and the Oregon Heritage Council provided good
information, but no goal recommendations.
• Community Roundtable (January 10, 2009)
Mayor Hoffman referenced Ms. Christie's summary of the Roundtable discussion. Ms. Christie
noted the main topics of communication, building trust, Lake Grove, senior citizen issues
(transportation, secondary dwelling units), and historic preservation.
Mayor Hoffman noted that George Benson suggested that the City hire a community coordinator
to work with Elders in Action. Councilor Hennagin informed the Council that the Rotary Club had
a Volunteer Organizer who helped assign volunteers (both Rotary members and non-members) to
non-profit organizations in the community who have expressed a need.
Councilor Olson mentioned that several people talked about affordable housing, the housing
stock, and road maintenance. Mayor Hoffman indicated that John Pullen would testify at the
Budget Committee, which would address his numerous financial issues.
Councilor Tierney recalled that John Surrett asked to revisit the water rate decision in a year,
instead of in two years, and to revisit the Tigard Water agreement. Councilor Olson asked to talk
about the water rate decision before the summer, including background information and
clarification on data that was not presented at the public hearing. Councilor Tierney agreed,
pointing out that discussing what was likely to be a 'hot potato' issue this summer in the absence of
emotions would be valuable to the Council. He asked to include what the communication plan
would be.
Councilor Olson clarified to Councilor Hennagin that she was not asking to revisit the decision of
a prior Council, but rather to discuss it. Councilor Tierney observed that the new Council needed
to have an understanding of the decision. Mr. McIntyre indicated that Mr. Komarek would present
a Water 101 and a Sewer 101 presentation at next week's meeting.
• La Provence get together
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that the Council has already covered everything he had written down
at this meeting.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14
January 27, 2009
52
• City Manager's Spreadsheet
Mr. McIntyre invited Council feedback on his draft of the Council goals, which included milestones,
resource needs, and community outreach.
The Council discussed the Communications and Engagement goal. Referencing the timeline,
Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that they needed to wait for the formal program
adoption in June to start working on this goal. Mr. McIntyre concurred. He explained that he
needed to know what additional efforts the Council wanted staff to undertake as 'the enhanced
level' before setting the timeline.
Mayor Hoffman agreed with Councilor Olson's concern. He suggested spending five or ten
minutes at the next meeting to discuss ideas for enhancing public communication.
Mr. McIntyre reviewed the City infrastructure goals. He noted the upcoming LOIS project
milestones of the $40 to $50 million contract award and putting the financing in place to pay for the
contract. He asked the Council members to think about whether the City should borrow the money
all at once, given the unstable market, or do it in pieces and hope that the balance of the $50
million was available a year later.
Councilor Olson suggested rewording the second bullet to 'keep residents apprised of the project
and its construction and financial milestone,' as residents would be interested in the financing as
well as the construction. She suggested adding regular financial progress reports to the project.
Mr. McIntyre highlighted two issues regarding the water supply goal: implementing the contract
and taking action to secure an adequate future water supply.
Councilor Olson asked about water SDC methodologies. Mr. Komarek indicated that Mr.
McIntyre authorized his suggestion to update their utility SDC methodologies because all of their
utility SDC methodologies were out of date and did not reflect the true cost of providing service.
Staff started with the water utility, as it had the most recently completed master plan (2001), but
then put it on hold until after the Tigard water supply discussion, because that agreement impacted
the SDCs. With the resolution of the Tigard water supply issue, he thought that it was time to
continue that work.
He confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that staff needed to know the value of the new infrastructure and
the amount of excess capacity to serve new growth as part of the improvement portion of the water
SDC.
Mr. McIntyre mentioned that staff would bring up the prioritization of the infrastructure master
plans through the budget process.
Mr. McIntyre discussed the goal `to make an informed community supported decision about the
West End Building.' He noted the study session on February 10, at which Mr. Williams would
present all the data that staff had to date as a means of setting the table for a discussion. He
mentioned that the staff goal was to move this item along and get it behind the Council, because it
continued to hinder staff's ability to work on other Council goals. He noted that the facilities
discussion linked to the West End Building discussion because so much depended on the final
decision on the West End Building.
He noted that the Council has already discussed the planning goals and most of the economic
development goals. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he would incorporate all the notes
from this discussion into the final goals list. He pointed out that he categorized streetcars and
Foothills into an economic development initiative, and described it as an issue with which the
Council needed to get comfortable. He commented that he saw the last goal of downtown urban
renewal as tied to economic development.
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that whether the Streetcar/Foothills initiative would need a new
full-time employee depended on the other pieces of the whole picture.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14
January 27, 2009
53
He reviewed the special projects and initiatives that came out of the Council retreat discussion. He
noted that the library district funding issue would play out through the budget process. He
commented that revisiting the City's emergency response plan would take a focused effort. He
pointed out the change to adopting an annual budget from the bi-annual budget the City has used
in the recent past. He mentioned the Centennial celebration and the historic iron furnace as
additional projects.
Councilor Tierney commented that the Budget Committee would meet more than once a month
until budget adoption. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that staff would provide the monthly financial
updates that Council requested for the Budget Committee after budget adoption, and quarterly
reports starting immediately.
Mr. McIntyre addressed the intergovernmental relations initiative. He strongly urged the Council
members to attend the Clackamas/Multnomah/Tillamook Counties meeting with Congressman Kurt
Schrader to be held this Friday morning in the Lake Oswego City Council Chambers. He
emphasized the importance of putting the Council members' names and faces in front of
Representative Schrader in order to get his attention.
He mentioned former Congresswoman Darlene Hooley's frank statement to him that if Lake
Oswego wanted to get money, then it had to put itself in front of both federal and state legislators.
If one did not ask, then one did not get anything. He described this as a smart investment,
especially if it paid off in three years with funds to pay for part of the water project.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City did contract with a lobbyist firm; it was working
on transit streetcars. He urged whichever Council members went to the National League of Cities
meeting in Washington, D.C., to meet with the City's federal representatives to remind them of who
they were and what Lake Oswego's needs were.
He asked that the Council members inform him in advance of the February 3 meeting of any
language changes, such as Councilor Olson suggested earlier.
• Calendar
Mayor Hoffman informed the Council that the February 3 meeting would be primarily a study
session on sensitive lands, the LOIS project, Tigard water supply goals, and communication and
engagement, following adoption of the minutes.
The Council discussed at what time to start the February 9 meeting. It agreed on 5 p.m.
Mayor Hoffman asked the Councilors to block out more tentative study session dates on their
calendars. The Council members decided to bring their calendars to the February 3 meeting to
see if March 5, 12, 19, and 26 were available.
Mr. McIntyre said that staff would do some agenda management to address Councilor Olson's
concern about the Northwest Appeal Findings, currently scheduled for tentative adoption on
March 24, which was during Spring Break.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 1��e. ti ChtwiiON vh'"
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14
January 27, 2009
54
7. 1
``4j O�LAKE Os��CO
aity
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGO,4
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: David Powell, City Attorney .
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2536 —Amending the Code to return to a one-year
budget period; Amending the terms of appointed Budget
Committee Members
DATE: February 11, 2009
ACTION
The Council is requested to enact Ordinance 2536 changing the City's budget period
from two years to one year, and changing the terms of appointed Budget Committee
members from four years to three years.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
In 2003, the City Council amended the Code to provide for a bi-annual City budget as
allowed by Oregon Local Budget Law. The City Manager has proposed that the City
return to a one-year budget, beginning with the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Proposed
Ordinance 2536 (attached) makes the necessary amendments to the Lake Oswego
Code.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Ordinance 2536 amends LOC 12.54.010 to provide that the City budget shall
be prepared and adopted for a budget period of one fiscal year, rather than 24 months.
The current Code language allows the option of adopting a resolution directing that a
one-year budget be prepared. However this resolution would need to be re-adopted
each time that a single-year budget is desired. Proposed Ordinance 2536 implements
the current proposal by providing for regular one-year budgets, without the need to
revisit the issue of the budget term each year.
55
Council Report
February 11, 2009
Page 2
Pursuant to state law, municipalities that adopt one-year budgets are required to
appoint budget committee members for terms of three years. LOC 12.54.015 currently
provides for four-year terms, consistent with state requirements for entities with
biannual budgets. Proposed Ordinance 2536 amends this Code section to re-establish
three year terms.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The alternatives are:
1. Enact Ordinance 2536, enabling a return to a single fiscal year budget period; or
2. Do not enact Ordinance 2536, retaining the current biannual budget period.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council enact Ordinance No. 2536
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance 2536
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
a 7
David Powell
City Attorney
Financ rector
Alex . clntyre
City Manager
56
ORDINANCE NO. 2536
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE LAKE
OSWEGO CODE RELATING TO THE CITY'S BUDGET PERIOD AND THE TERMS
OF APPOINTED BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WHEREAS in 2003 the Lake Oswego City Council enacted Ordinance 2348 (LOC 12.54.010)
directing that the City budget be prepared and adopted for a budget period of 24 months; and
WHEREAS the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City to return to the practice
of preparing and adopting budgets for one fiscal year; and
WHEREAS state law requires that, for municipalities that adopt one-year budgets, citizen budget
committee members shall be appointed for terms of three years
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 12.54.010 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended as follows (new text
shown in bold,underlined type, deleted text shown in strikethrough type):
12.54.010 City Budget.
As authorized by ORS 294.323; the The City budget shall be prepared
and adopted in accordance with the requirements of Oregon Local Budget Law
(ORS 294.305 to 294.565) for a budget period of 21 months one fiscal year.
'1 A � +1 l of the seco vrl fiscal o f o c b . budget
adopted pursuant to LOC 12.54.010(1), the City Manager shall submit to the-City
resources and expenditures for the second year of the adopted biennial budget.
procedures outlined-in-ORS 291.305 to 291.565 unless the budget statement alters
ed . „der those u«.�statutes
.
3. Notwithstanding LOC 12.54.010 (I), the City Council may direct by
291.565 for a single fiscal year.
Section 2. Section 12.54.015 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended as follows (new text
shown in bold, underlined type, deleted text shown in strikethrough type):
12.51.015 Budget Committee.
1. Creation;Membership; Term. There is hereby created a Budget Committee
of the City of Lake Oswego consisting of the members of the City Council and a
number of appointive positions equal to the number of members of the City
Council. The appointive positions shall serve four year terms for three-year
terms. If the number of members of the City Council is increased or reduced by
Charter amendment or law, the City Council shall increase or reduce the number
Ordinance No. 2536
Page 1 of 2
57
of appointive positions accordingly. Any increase or reduction in the number of
appointive positions shall be accompanied by any necessary term modifications to
ensure than an equal or approximately equal number of appointive positions
become vacant each year.
2. Qualifications. The appointive members of the Budget Committee shall be
electors of the City. Appointive members shall not be officers, agents or
employees of the City. Notwithstanding LOC 12.50.015 (2), if any member of the
Budget Committee ceases to be qualified for the position, that position shall
become vacant.
3. Duties. The Budget Committee shall exercise the powers and duties set
forth in ORS Chapter 294. LOC 12.50.030 (6) and LOC 12.50.035 (1)through
(5) do not apply to the Budget Committee.
4. Officers. The Budget Committee shall at its first meeting after its
appointment elect a Presiding Officer and an Alternate Presiding Officer, who
shall have the powers of the Chair and Vice-Chair pursuant to LOC 12.50.025
from among its members.
Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council held on the 17th day of February, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie,City Recorder
APPROVED AS TG\FORM:
:x .FJ
David Powell
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2536
Page 2 of 2
58
8.1
L,{{of LAKE osw
Al
„,,,, 1, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
aREGA,4
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-06, establishing the terms of appointed Budget
Committee
DATE: February 11, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to approve Resolution 09-06, establishing the terms of appointed
Budget Committee members.
BACKGROUND
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Johnson and Tierney,
and Ron Smith, Chair of the Citizens' Budget Committee, met on February 9, 2009, to
recommend changes of the terms of the members of the Citizen's Budget Committee.
The Committee recommends staggering the terms of the members of the Budget
Committee as follows: the existing terms of Gary Logsdon and Katherine Shallenberger
should retain their ending dates of August 31, 2009, the terms of Kelly Calabria and
Ron Smith should be changed to end August 31, 2010, and the terms of Daniel
Williams, Jeff Gudman and Frank Bearden should be established to end August 31,
2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-06
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. �' \
Reviewed by:..
i f ) (2 ,/,
��
City Attorney`
59
Council Report
01/26/09
Page 2
Alex D. N1kt'ntyre
City Manager
60
RESOLUTION 09-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF APPOINTED BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Johnson and
Tierney, and Ron Smith, Chair of the Budget Committee, met on January 22, 2009, to
interview candidates for the Budget Committee; and
WHEREAS on February 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 09-03 making
certain appointments to the Budget Committee; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of Code amendments returning the City to a one-year
budget period, which would require that the terms of appointed Budget Committee
members be changed from three years to four years, Resolution 09-03 requested the
Interview Committee to make a recommendation of how the appointed Budget
Committee members' terms should be staggered, consistent with the requirements of
state law; and
WHEREAS, the Interview Committee met on February 9, 2009, and recommends
staggering the terms of the members of the Budget Committee as follows: the existing
terms of Gary Logsdon and Katherine Shallenberger should retain their ending dates of
August 31, 2009; the terms of Kelly Calabria and Ron Smith should be changed to end
August 31, 2010; and the terms of Daniel Williams, Jeff Gudman and Frank Bearden
should be established to end August 31, 2011; and
WHEREAS the City Council has enacted Ordinance 2536, returning the City to a one-
year budget period and re-establishing three-year terms for appointed Budget
Committee Members
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the terms of appointed members of the
Budget Committee shall be staggered as follows: the ending date of the terms of Gary
Logsdon and Katherine Shallenberger shall remain August 31, 2009, the terms of Kelly
Calabria and Ron Smith shall end August 31, 2010, and the terms of Daniel Williams,
Jeff Gudman and Frank Bearden shall end August 31, 2011.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the day of February, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
61
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS Tp-FORM:
, i ✓7
David D. Powell, City Attorney
62
11 . 1
of LANE Oyw
``A� 0O
AT 1 1
Aii
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner
SUBJECT: Business Recycling Requirements Program
DATE: February 6, 2009
ACTION
This report is to provide the Council with background on Metro's Business Recycling
Requirements program, and to gather Council input on the development and
implementation of a Business Recycling Requirements ordinance for Lake Oswego
businesses.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
As discussed at the January 27 Council study session, the City is in the process of
developing a Business Recycling Requirements program for Lake Oswego businesses.
In brief, the Metro Council adopted the Business Recycling Requirements program in
September 2008. The Business Recycling Requirements program provides an
opportunity for businesses to work with local governments to provide recycling
education, to create a consistent standard throughout the Metro region, and to increase
recycling, thereby assisting the Metro region in meeting recovery goals, conserving
natural resources, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The program directs all local governments in the region to establish recycling
requirements for businesses that include:
• Preparing paper, cardboard, and containers (aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and
glass) for recycling;
• Ensuring there are recycling containers for the collection of these materials; and
• Posting recycling information where materials are collected.
63
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 2
The Business Recycling Requirements program is intended to provide a level playing
field for all businesses in the region. Currently, the inconsistent recycling requirements
and variable services offered throughout the region can confuse and frustrate
businesses. For most businesses, the program would only require employees to recycle
additional items in existing recycling containers, while some businesses may require
additional recycling containers. Some business may see disposal costs decrease as
they recycle more and are able to decrease size of garbage containers or frequency of
collection.
Metro's development of this program came out of several years' work with local
government partners, public/private work groups, and business community outreach. A
summary of Metro's Proposed Business Recycling Requirements Stakeholder
Feedback is included as Attachment 1. As part of this outreach, Metro councilors and
staff met with local business associations and elected officials to explain the Business
Recycling Requirements program and get feedback, including the Lake Oswego City
Council on April 1, 2008, and the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Government
Affairs Committee in February 2008. Overall, participants indicated that education and
incentives are the best way to encourage businesses to recycle, but that requirements
may be needed to make recycling a priority.
According to information provided by Metro, businesses generate almost half of the
region's garbage and each year dispose of more than 100,000 tons of paper and
containers that could otherwise be recycled. Over the past eight years, Metro and their
local government partners have invested $3.5 million to encourage more business
recycling by providing free technical assistance. While clear progress has been made
as a result of these efforts, an estimated 14 percent of businesses in the region recycle
nothing or cardboard only. Specific information about recycling rates of Lake Oswego
businesses is not readily available.
Metro's business recycling requirements are expected to divert at least 80,000 tons of
that material from the landfill to recycling, which would result in an estimated $10.22
million in net environmental benefits. For example, recycling 80,000 tons of paper and
containers each year will result in greenhouse gas emission reductions equivalent to
driving nearly 42,000 cars for one year. The increase in paper recycling would also
support Oregon paper mills. Currently, paper collected in the Metro region provides less
than 11 percent of total paper mill needs; the rest of the paper must be shipped in from
outside our region.
Metro Council member Carlotta Collette will be in attendance at the February 17
Council study session to provide information on why this program is needed to meet
regional and state waste reduction and recycling goals. Jean Bauman, chair of the
City's Sustainability Advisory Board, will also be at the meeting to share information on
the larger context of how these efforts will help to mitigate climate change and support
City sustainability efforts and goals.
64
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 3
DISCUSSION
The City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, and Allied Waste Services of Lake
Oswego currently work together to promote recycling in the business sector. Under this
model, the City is responsible for ensuring that the franchised hauler, Allied Waste,
provides recycling collection services to commercial customers. Clackamas County
Recycle at Work specialists, in partnership with Metro and the City, and Allied Waste
provide free educational materials and technical assistance on recycling and waste
prevention to Lake Oswego businesses. Clackamas County Recycle at Work is also
able to provide free desk-side recycling containers for businesses, while Allied Waste
provides larger recycling containers (e.g. roll carts and cardboard containers) for their
business customers.
In early January 2009, City staff met with Allied Waste, Clackamas County Recycle at
Work, and the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce to discuss the Metro ordinance
and its impact on commercial customers in Lake Oswego. The group also discussed
outreach strategies and potential options for program implementation and compliance.
The City's Sustainability Advisory Board approved a motion in support of the Council
developing a Business Recycling Requirements program at their January 22 meeting.
Staff met again with Allied Waste on February 2 to clarify proposed program elements.
To comply with this program, the City must adopt a Business Recycling Requirements
ordinance, including development of a compliance strategy. At the January 27 study
session, the Council directed staff to request an extension of the compliance deadline
from February 27 to April 30, 2009. This request was submitted to Metro and has been
approved.
A draft Lake Oswego ordinance is in the process of being developed. The major
components proposed by staff for this ordinance include:
• The requirement would apply to all commercial businesses in the City of Lake
Oswego. Businesses whose primary office is located in a residence would not be
affected by this ordinance. Exemptions would be allowed for those businesses
that do not generate any recyclable materials provided they allow access to their
site for verification. Standards will be developed to provide guidance on the
exemption process.
• The City will use its business licensing program to inform businesses of the
business recycling requirements and how they can successfully comply with the
program. When obtaining or renewing a City business license, businesses will be
required to self-report on their recycling efforts.
o Proof of compliance will be based on self-reported verification that Best
Management Practices (BMPs)—activities a business can engage in to
improve its ability to recycle and compost materials and prevent the
generation of waste—are in place and being used, rather than on
quantitative measurement of business waste generation and recycling. To
65
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 4
ensure program consistency across Clackamas County, seven (7)
universal BMPs have been developed (included as Attachment 2).
o If a business is not set up for recycling at the time of business license
renewal or application they will have the opportunity to request technical
assistance from Recycle at Work, and sufficient time to set up their
recycling program.
o The self-reporting function will allow the City to ask businesses if they self-
haul or contract with an outside company for sole-source recycling.
o Implementation of the self-reporting compliance element of the program is
anticipated for November 2009, the time when all business licenses are
renewed, and thereafter on an annual bases.
• To develop targeted program outreach and technical assistance, City staff will
work with Allied Waste and Recycle at Work staff to review business recycling
reporting information, commercial customer information, and available business
database(s).
• The overarching compliance strategy for this program will be assistance driven.
Recycle at Work and Allied Waste staff will continue to work with businesses to
help them implement waste reduction and recycling programs using free on-site
assistance and education materials crafted to the individual business' needs.
• Recycling goals are long term and businesses that are making a good faith effort
but unable to reach goals immediately will not be penalized.
• Code enforcement and penalties will be used as a last resort and reserved for
those few uncooperative businesses refusing to improve their waste prevention
and recycling practices after extensive technical assistance efforts. Options for
code enforcement are discussed on page 5 of this report.
Following is the proposed approach and schedule for program implementation:
• March 2009: Mailing to businesses in Lake Oswego, including information on
how to meet the Business Recycling Requirements and notice of the City Council
hearing on the proposed ordinance (before April 30, date to be determined).
• April 2009: Bring proposed ordinance to City Council for review and approval,
date to be determined.
• April 2009: Work with City finance department/business license staff to develop
program reporting materials and processes.
• April 2009: Coordinate with Recycle at Work and Allied Waste staff to develop a
targeted business outreach strategy to identify businesses in need of recycling
assistance.
• April/May 2009: After ordinance approval a notice will be sent to businesses
(within 60 days of adoption as required by Metro). Information on the program
and how to meet the requirements with be included.
• On-going: Recycle at Work (under agreement with the City) and Allied Waste
staff will continue to work directly with businesses to assist them with gaining
66
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 5
compliance. A year-end Recycle at Work report with results will be submitted to
Metro starting in July 2009, and annually thereafter.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
An assistance driven compliance strategy is the program's main thrust, with
enforcement and penalties used as a last resort. If assistance and compliance efforts
have failed, non-compliant businesses will be referred to enforcement for inspection,
assessment of penalties, or other appropriate enforcement action. Enforcement options
that the Council may want to consider are outlined below:
• Option 1 (County code enforcement): If code enforcement is required, the
County would conduct the enforcement process based on referral provided by
Recycle at Work staff. This option would require an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) between the City and the County, and the City would need to
accept County policies and procedures for enforcement. This would require the
City to compensate the County for these services on a case by case basis, with
cost depending on the level of code enforcement required.
• Option 2 (City code enforcement): If code enforcement is required, the City
would conduct the enforcement process based on referral from Recycle at Work
staff. It is not anticipated that the new requirements will create excess
enforcement work as the bulk of the compliance effort will occur in an attempt to
gain compliance through Recycle at Work assistance.
• Option 3 (Metro code enforcement): If code enforcement is required, Metro
would conduct the enforcement process based on referral from Recycle at Work
staff. This option would require an IGA with Metro. There will be no cost to local
governments using Metro's services. Also, if Metro enforcement is chosen it will
not impact the distribution of additional funds, noted below, attached to
implementing this program.
It is expected that a portion of the additional $400,000 allocated by Metro toward the
implementation of this program will be used by the County on the City's behalf toward
business compliance assistance. No new funding needs are anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare a Business Recycling
Requirements ordinance for Council review and approval, with future code enforcement
handled by City staff. A final recommendation to Council will be made at a subsequent
Council meeting prior to the end of April 2009, date to be determined.
67
Council Report
02/06/09
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Metro's Proposed Business Recycling Requirements Stakeholder Feedback,
May 2008
2. Guiding Principles and Best Management Practices (draft dated 12/11/08)
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.S V
epa t Director
Alex yre
City Manager
68
vi ir r r '�",h�S' 'e^° s '� rtr
{IIA' �� �' a
, .y '� 4 a +r �. ���y. ' v a a x a�` ".
(*I M etr
oi People places. Open spaces.
Proposed Business Recycling Requirements
Stakeholder Feedback Summary
May 2008
BACKGROUND
Businesses generate almost half of the region's garbage and each year dispose more
than 100,000 tons paper and containers that could otherwise be recycled. Over the past
eight years, Metro and its local government partners have invested $3.5 million to
encourage more business recycling by providing free technical assistance. Now, Metro
is considering mandatory recycling of paper and containers for all businesses in the
region.
Metro explored options for increasing business recycling by convening public/private
work groups and conducting stakeholder outreach from 2003 to 2007. More than 1,000
people provided advice on approaches for increasing business recycling.
The proposed program, Business Recycling Requirements, would make it mandatory for
local businesses to recycle all types of paper and certain containers such as plastic
bottles, aluminum cans and glass. If the Metro Council approves this proposal as
currently drafted, all local governments in the region would be responsible for formally
adopting these business recycling requirements by January 1, 2009.
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
In an effort to solicit input on the proposed program, Metro councilors and staff
conducted meetings with local business associations and elected officials. Metro staff
coordinated outreach efforts with the City of Portland, which was expanding its
commercial recycling program at the same time.
Between February and May 2008, councilors and staff met with 13 business groups and
five elected councils and boards (Table 1). The outreach efforts were supported by
article submissions in local chamber newsletters, a survey and a web page. The
program also received coverage in the Oregonian and other local publications.
The outreach efforts attracted a wide array of business representatives from across the
region. More than 300 business representatives and elected officials participated in the
meetings, and 103 surveys were completed at the meetings and online.
BRR Outreach Summary Attachment 1
69
Table 1. Stakeholder Outreach Summar
Organization Outreach Format Date
Building Owners and Managers Association Breakfast forum Feb. 6
Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Membership meeting Feb. 6
Committee
Oregon Lodging Association Board Members Special meeting Feb. 13
Westside Economic Alliance Membership meeting Feb. 20
Lake Oswego Chamber Governmental Affairs Committee Membership meeting Feb. 21
Recycling Advocates Membership meeting Feb. 29
Clackamas County Board of Commissioners Work session Feb. 26
Gresham Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Membership meeting Feb. 28
Committee
Wood Village City Council Work session March 11
Oregon City Chamber of Commerce Economic Membership meeting March 13
Development Committee
North Clackamas Chamber of Commerce Membership meeting March 17
Milwaukie City Council Work session March 18
Lake Oswego City Council Work session April 1
Hillsboro Chamber Public Policy Committee Membership meeting April 2
• Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce Lunch forum April 9
Hillsboro City Council Work session April 15
Sustainable Business Network Lunch forum April 16
Forest Grove Chamber of Commerce Lunch forum May 19
KEY FINDINGS
Overall, participants agree that business recycling efforts can be improved. Both elected
officials and business representatives expressed support for the overall objective of the
program.
Although participants support increasing business recycling through expanded education
and economic incentives, support for a regulatory approach varied. Some viewed a
regulatory approach as a contingency strategy if economic incentives and education fail
to increase participation, while others felt a mandate was necessary to make recycling a
priority for businesses. This was reflected both in the meetings and in the survey
responses. As shown in Figure 1, survey results show that 61 percent of the
respondents support required recycling, while 25 percent did not and 14 percent were
unsure (see Attachment A for full survey).
BRR Outreach Summary 2
70
Figure 1. Business Support for Proposed Requirements
Unsure
14%
No 'M 1. wa
25% F i"IA
" � In favor
13170
Source: Proposed Business Recycling Requirements Survey,Metro,2008.
Key items identified by the participants during the meeting discussions and in survey
comments included:
• Recycling is a benefit to businesses. Practicing waste reduction attracts customers,
and employees want to recycle.
• Education and economic incentives are the best way to encourage businesses to
recycle. Some businesses, however, will not make it a priority unless it is
mandatory.
• Education efforts should be tailored to the needs of businesses and should be
directed at the owner, manager and employee level. Educational materials should
also be available for multi-tenant businesses and janitorial companies. Recycling
messages need to be simple and consistent across the region.
• Government regulation should be used only if education and economic incentives fail
to increase participation.
• Regulations should be implemented gradually. Six months is a sufficient amount of
time for businesses to improve their recycling programs to meet the requirements.
Consider delaying fines until after the requirements have been in effect for one year.
NEXT STEPS
The proposed program and stakeholder feedback will be presented to the Metro Solid
Waste Advisory Committee and Metro Policy Advisory Committee between May and
July 2008. The results will be presented to Metro Council in July 2008.
HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION
For more information on the proposed Business Recycling Requirements contact:
Marta McGuire, Senior Planner
Metro Solid Waste & Recycling Department
(503) 797-1806
marta.mcguire@oregonmetro.gov
Or, visit www.oregonmetro.gov/businessrequirements
BRR Outreach Summary 3
71
Attachment A:
Proposed Business Recycling Requirements
Survey Response Summary
1. What type of business are you in?
u :
atii,j,2 ft'.'404VAM.0„-''v,,rrlriooar,,7it.):wa,,s..?iototfitte14,i,.,o,, iiri
i gf* , ,. , . , r Response Percent Response count:.
Office-related such as financial, medical, or 1' "' k .K '`�/ k� " + ,..
professional service I ,, , r< r p x� r 1,„A
li y''�t�' I' ,,-�: P k 7 o- u. 'v
Personal services such as hairdresser or plumber ,u�, p ,1ao � � ,,,�_ i ., `.t
A retail store selling goods ' '={ , .gyp/a ;{., t ' ' I{ ryy'''
Restaurant, fast food, or grocer ' -,' :"�" I� ; .,1, w` `," ,`
School, library, or educational institution + / + �� a, i��r' I`` �'
Hotel or motel ri i' 01 a �i �ie�r iyw 0 r- ,$ , o
i It C r "r k P3 1 e z s
Hospital or medical clinic r` "9;5 '� . = _'' ,. g
1 f d M -tir
Manufacturer 3.2% ' "r,+ ,4 3' , F ,r k.
Wholesaling or warehousing business q, ,I,i.,' °.. `M�V �y4, r �' `
Government agency 0� 4 , 63°,/z�,E i� �, a 6
ry� � � �ii7ZtF�?
Non-profit organization •o, , .5% S
Other .lease s.eo �.0 ;,t`' v,' ; �� ;`
.skipped question
2. What materials do you currently recycle?
V• a n
biz le
Response Percent Respons•e•Count
Cardboard ' r ,� " ? ° a ,t ? MI. � '� r 9 �.,�,� ','t ,, 5
Office .a per l't ` .tli 2 °°a �V V V n ,.R� Inl �. f' ,:93� .
.... _ 1 ?Is %,�b r,s' S ,.1 sr k s , '
Magazines, catalogs phone ,° ��77'"� ii
ri r'+ � K F � Q��C7L�2,� 4 �ry �� �,� k5 ( 7� �; i t-^-
books ,•,•5 •.'-4„ ':. •� . :,: . -m
m
Plastic bottles `�� �' ;�j j'�� �'� +� 4 +� ..7�� , ` �
Aluminum cans x %a :a.' * Fi :
Glass bottles �� V.'li�� 1, ;,'�� }•4% „9ti1�,.t , s icA 6 .,
Other •leases•ec• m;'4,` " ,5 l,�- .,.2'1 ,.T : i a
skipped question 2
BRR Outreach Summary 4
72
3. Do you think businesses in the region should be required to recycle paper and
containers?
e ° np t Response: ltespc
n. ns
0.06-40
Y Per+�entount.e
Yes
No 2540 70. f,t; .25m, 1,
Unsure
Comments:
f ,i -g itl fit,
• YES! ' '�
• How could you enforce this? Unless you lock trash bins, anyone could
throw recyclables in the trash.
• Use public award notifications that businesses can post. 4. ,
• Make stronger voluntary program first.
• But encourage them with incentives.
■ Education should do the trick.
■ What a shame it needs to be a requirement!
• Reward system.
• Yes, if voluntary compliance is tried with renewed vigor and it still doesn't i A'
work.
• My company's recycling program is handled by someone other than me
• The mandatory aspect is concerning. Just an example of poor
communications& partnerships. '
• I think they would recycling-I think they want to....I don't think a hard
mandate is necessarily the best idea.
• This is a hostile idea to businesses, not very measurable, &will have 0
et` 0t "
unintended consequences. ref' `
• As long as the charge is nominal to get small business booked in. � k
Education is also key. ;
• I don't like the idea of mandating it, but I don't understand shy more
businesses aren't recycling. It's so easy?
• Absolutely NO mandatory recycling.
• More could be done to teach recycling, should not be mandatory yet. How ;k,.
will code enforcement officers be paid? s
• Not sure if this will do anything other than cost us for what we already do
Ifyou use a cleaningservice, willyou be fined if THEY dumprecyclable
cY
ti
bins into general trash? How to monitor?
• I think there needs to be more specific info on the cost added with this IFIll.111.ZlilWillesizzoi
service.
ItexamitAligatiovatottraistwalissiaigsbUisttssitailikairaittingesmakittoxfanwimmiumesterammemia
skipped gwesti n
BRR Outreach Summary 5
73
4. Does six months provide adequate time for your business to get its recycling
ro•ram in com,liance with the •ro 3osed re•uirements?
-.R.liti,ji•Tasippqmovz.-coriter,.1:..:,':, ......,-..:•.,J..,....• :.•'••••,,,,•••r,•••::::•."•....:.,,,,'.•••.•:.-2'....:•,••!.'••:,.....'•....,,!.!'•..••.• •••!,,,,.....",,,,,,,,.:• .......•...:•,•::••-.••••,
,,1'.A17,'i''t:t,i.,?44 Response 0 espouse
. .. ape a. ' Im, jl
fl rcent RCount
Yes i�"i t lt � ,¢ ,f 0cI
No , ,wlr x�« ,,,.
Unsure f �,, ��LL�� '.13$% s .'. A`,, ' f '3
Comments: iil , 0,1
▪ Already done . ii s'
• Already doing it. `°'45''n"'r�r,i', ,. '
• Already recycling �,
• We already do it. .1,``i `�" „".
• I don't think that requiring recycling would be effective. Incentives and 1'1"�,�'. t .,,';
awareness of recycling programs would be much more effective. 't ,,'
,.r,
`(t��, ., ' ii�Y %? � ef. � "�� .�'.1 :x:w xr� l�, �„ .�. � w�+m't"Mr� v�,•p;fin"' h. v ,�r'b,.
r
. . skipped question
5. Has your waste hauler offered to provide your business with recycling services?
w)` . w Response Percent Response Count
Yes 4,9,„IOn.Jk ill " ,, r _tw , x I: . 4:c
No ,' 45 itr .r`W W,#t...: t 1:0 ,
El= ro.4� r 's i ^, d
,�.. � � t ....� ate I
Comments: ,, , ,t a , , h 4
• Not a proactive ""ask"" from the waste haulers �� � �i 3 �`� , k 5
■ Probably because we recycle a lot, { Tr y 3 ; '' V w,
• Home-based, fi, ,,, ^. t ,,`
• My apartment complex has recycling. �`� pit
• We have a large mixed recycling bin but ,, 6.
nothing for glass. ��, " it ,',; � ,
• Seasonal businesses, we don't currently haves 43
regular trash service. O �a �` ' i
,irss,Ma .G- : -: a -x A.�. a;t„ wa<m �"' p�
tomeeiranssm
sk/p
6. Are you aware of the free technical assistance and resources provided by the
Recycle at Work program?
it!'!'''''
. onse Percent - Response., :
§a WW
.,.A,w.... j I T A „ �,� •,., �e"L 'S C,`�1� 4.4 1 ,, !Co11n
.,. n r, t `' L i 1'W," '" �' 3km 1ww �H it+� , 3, r t�` �1p,„.;
Yes 51.6a g, " �� i b.
No i4 !I:, 7 /4 ,1 ['t a5 ,.'6.,' I" a r�',. fi',a ,�-�" .. U u= - .x 't,:;,C.
,;w -'' ': .: ;%elk u✓a iM , ram ca,' �sz '. ' k, x�
IEgliejfSddltati' � �����map ,w^ r�•�, �"�Y� �`^j�,
!..:.. ' $kippe4l.q`tic .
BRR Outreach Summary
74
7. Would you like a Recycling Specialist to follow up with your organization to provide
free resources and assistance?
r. a
�1 V A= Response Percent Response Count
t 2 3 OP/Sz„ -„ 41 i r�' Y,
'"�i 1 i � 44 I �5 � r�, s
N o } 5
W1p O*{i+' r� y 7 I1 s 1 , � n.w
'a 64` �' "".f(T V
^ a �ve,�
a
gfiRa
. o .i f r .m d a i ff '� i s
' kippedqu stion>::: : . - 176
8. Do you have any questions you'd like us to answer,for,you regarding the proposed
recycling requirements?
i .; p
q . , a :� .ta Response R•esponse
r, 4JJJJIII ig Percent Count
Yes 1Q 6°70:,0,' ``, h9� a.
f �h �
No ,! ;.0 .0yn z;,, li '.
16 ,h; 5
Questions. 4 - :
• RE: E-waste 1) get co's to reduce their waste, help my clients w/recycling ;, }'
resources(I'm a professional organizer). >~t ,,iE, `?.,
• Don't feel that Metro should be requiring property owner to enforce recycling if ,s` ,' ;
tenant does own trash disposal service. �` �,`d�� �'F
• Would Metro consider a partnership w/businesses to get out into schools& t1t
work w/recycling in schools & looking into ways that we can support each ; :' 'ii : �
others efforts&educate ourselves'? (This was clearer in my head than when I ',,
actually wrote it out!) I' 8
VrE y
• Shred-It takes our paper recycling from our locations. Are they recycling this , 14��
paper? 4
• I have a business that has no need to recycle. My biggest waste is the gas I ,,�k ,. ,� ,ai �'
burn. 1' `:
• We haul our cardboard to local facility-office cleaning crew handles the rest. ��`
Hopefully "mandatory" won't give recycling a bad name.
• Is there a way to get schools set up with a composting program. t , ,r
;; skipped question .$
9. Please provide your contact information so we may follow up with your request for
assistance and/or any questions you may have.
e �,,, 9 Response Percent Response Count
� , �.,k ^^ �',{��1- I iM=x' s dp,r c pt,y kr�k��i��x4 �,. ,iV n �&�.�i , �y. i��r� �4$ n+ ', ,f�p` d
Name -- '7 �:/51/"_�ii 1 i. f:. ' I` C I�� Yr } i'a"„
Title 8? 0 O atf I i
Organization 90 2% 1' ,$5 } , ,y
Phone 'w i8 , .;'::,,,,,,,,,,,::::,!,,;',.;;,...:,.,A.,:,,,,,,:,,,,
0 '; t ~r �,
i <i
Email Address �: Ky � : ��r.��" ti g tis., a
slopped 9gestion :.4
BRR Outreach Summary 7
75
10. Please share any additional comments you may have regarding the proposed
Business Recycling Requirements.
?JkLPYIL1I!! IIIJIIIIII1IIt=:r
!
Comments:
• This program should be national!
■ Businesses and individuals need to get moving and recycle some more.
• I think mandated recycling is important. Our company has only very recently
started doing any recycling, and it only happened because myself&co-worker
made it a priority. Before I was employed here, I didn't realize businesses that
don't recycle still existed! People need to push.
■ We have a RecycleWorks Award. Great work- keep it up!
• We should dialog with manufacturers and get them to make products that lend
themselves toward being recycled (eg: cradle to cradle manufacturing). Thank
you much.
• I am very much in favor of recycling but I don't think you should require
recycling. Business has economic incentive to do so-it lowers the garbage bill.
Education is the key-educate business, show how it is economically better to
recycle &they'll do it. There is enough government regulation without a
recycling requirement. If you require recycling-make it apply only to large
businesses with over a certain#of employees or waste.
■ Recycling Rocks!
• Let's find a way to help get education out there instead of a hard mandate
(with financial consequences) on businesses....tenants only have so much
control over their waste programs.
• Your target is arbitrary.
• As a chamber, we would be happy to partner with Metro to educate our
businesses.
• I wasn't aware that shredded paper wasn't recyclable.
• #8, unless you have ideas on what else we might recycle.
• The answers I gave are primarily for our home. The guild is made up of
individual artists and currently we have no location for recycling.
• I'm just a tenant in the executive suites, so I don't have a lot to do with
recycling.
• You have not provided the regulations which are enforced on a business for
this program. Please do not propose a program without complete regulations
which will be enforced on a business. We are not interested on a proposal
which does not give full information to the subject of your plan(a business).We
are in Wahington County and we have Waste Management in Forest Grove.
• Perhaps a gradual/stepped method of charging fees.
• Need boxes for recycling &info on segregating shredded paper from other
recyclables.
• Office is open Jan-1 - April 15
• Very glad to hear about the potential for Styrofoam.
• Is there an alternative recycle outside of Metro or can I have this in any color
as long as I want black.
• Very interesting 1st-time info. I would think it's better to require education
w/fines than recycling w/fines.
■ Recycling is vital for our state and our world. However, I believe much more
could be done to motivate before we have to regulate it.
• Why does glass have to be separate from paper &plastic?
• An interesting idea for businesses would be to provide shred-boxes at a
competitive price that would be serviced by waste haulers... By the way, the
new recycling containers provided by WM are great!
• Alread workin• with someone on Re cle At Work.Thanks!
BRR Outreach Summary 8
76
11. Survey Respondent by City
Hillsboro
Damascus 4% Happy Valley
Beaverton 5%0
1%
2%
Forest Grove C1 an
22% Lake Oswego
11 . 3%
,,`4,-4.,`,,'•,;T'''','''it,, 4 , ,, , :4 Portland
, 4, e 26%
Wilsonvilleogolisper , i
19%
k
Moro
1%
Tualatin Oregon City
9% 7%
...............
Ft iwa ,'ltitil rk �1 f 6 5`. a op„
,tilit'A
BRR Outreach Summary 9
77
p ft Clackamas County Business Recycling Requirements
Guiding Principles and Best Management Practices
Draft December 11, 2008
Guiding Principles
• The compliance strategy will be assistance driven, with the County and Franchisees supporting and
encouraging businesses in how to succeed with waste prevention and recycling. Tools and resources
will be provided so a business has all the information it needs to come into compliance.
• Due to the number of businesses throughout the County, direct measurement of individual business
waste generation and recycling is not feasible. The approach, instead, will rely on businesses
implementing "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) that are expected to maximize recycling and
waste prevention.
• Compliance will be defined by success implementing BMPs. Significant levels of recyclable materials
remaining in the trash will trigger further assistance and education.
• Recycling goals are long term and businesses that are making a good faith effort but unable to reach
goals immediately will not be penalized.
• The compliance strategy will be phased-in over an 18-month period, giving businesses ample time to
change their practices before they become subject to enforcement action.
• Enforcement and penalties are the last resort and reserved for those few uncooperative businesses
refusing to improve their waste prevention and recycling practices.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Following is a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) — activities a business can engage in to
improve its ability to recycle and compost materials and prevent the generation of waste. Every business
within unincorporated and incorporated Clackamas County will be responsible for implementing the set of
seven (7) universal BMPs:
1, Correctly label all interior and all exterior recycling and composting containers.
2. Establish, at minimum, a two-sort recycling collection service where glass is collected in a
separate receptacle from all other recyclables.
3. Locate internal and external recycling containers at least as conveniently accessible as garbage
containers.
4. Provide training about waste prevention and recycling to new employees and tenants and
educate all employees and tenants about recycling and waste prevention at least once annually.
5. Ensure property management and janitorial/maintenance agreements enable businesses to meet
waste prevention and recycling program goals.
6. Management to review and sign off on BMPs committed to at a business, and designate a person
Clackamas County may contact for all recycling and waste prevention activities within the
business.
7. Prevent total waste (including both trash and recycling) generated as measured by reducing
weight, container sizes and/or frequency of collection.
Attachment 2
79
11 .2
``ii O LAKE CO
ay CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
�-� COUNCIL REPORT
OREGO$
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jonna Papaefthimiou, AICP, Natural Resources Planner
SUBJECT: Study Session on Sensitive Lands CDC Amendments
DATE: February 5, 2009
ACTION
No action is requested for this study session.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This memo follows up on the Council's Sensitive Lands study session of February 3,
2009. It provides additional background on proposed changes to the Sensitive Lands
program. It begins with a brief description of development under the current code, and
then discusses the following questions posed by Council:
• Why would the City designate sensitive lands outside the City, and what is the
effect of doing so?
• What are the minimum requirements of Metro Titles 3 and 13, and how does the
City's code compare to these requirements (exceed or fail to meet)?
• What is the relationship between updates to the Sensitive Lands Atlas and
modifications of the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Community Development
Code?
The last part of this report describes the specific changes to the Sensitive Lands
chapter of the Community Development Code recommended by the Planning
Commission. Council is scheduled to deliberate on these changes in a public hearing
on March 3, 2009.
81
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Development Under the Current Code
Familiarity with the City's current environmental review process may be useful to the
rest of this discussion.
Process Summary:
The City maintains an atlas of protected streams, wetlands, and Environmental
tree groves. This map, called the Sensitive Lands Atlas, is part Review
of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Landowner contacts
The Sensitive Lands chapter of the Community Development City to discuss
Code describes the requirements for review of development in proposed project.
or near the Sensitive Lands shown in the Atlas. Development
that would result in land disturbance within 30 feet of a mapped Staff and landowner
water resource or within a mapped tree grove triggers the meet on site to
review. If the landowner is uncertain whether a project is determine if
subject to environmental review, City staff will meet the environmental
landowner on-site to make a determination. review is required.
If a development is subject to environmental review, the first Staff or landowner/
step is delineation. Staff will delineate tree groves and stream designee delineate
corridors for free for landowners at any time; applicants are resource
required to provide their own wetland delineations because of boundaries.
the complexity of these determinations. Once the resource is
delineated, the applicant creates a precise map of the resource Applicant submits
area and its buffer, resource boundary
Once the resource area is mapped, the applicant must follow an survey with land-use
"avoid, minimize, mitigate" approach in planning the rest of their application.
development. If they avoid the resource and its buffer
altogether, they are not subject to any further review. Applicant avoids
resource and buffer,
If an applicant finds that some impact to the resource area or or application
buffer is unavoidable, they must submit additional information to demonstrates
demonstrate that they have attempted to avoid impacts, that minimized and
they are minimizing the impacts, and they will mitigate for those mitigated impacts.
impacts. If the landowner wants to remove a portion of the tree
grove on their property, he/she also applies for approval of the Applicant records
protection area (at least 50% that will not be removed). resource delineation.
As a condition of approval of development, the landowner is required to record
their resource delineation at the County; this puts future property owners on
notice about development restrictions, and guarantees that the landowner will not
need to make another delineation in the future, even if the resource changes
over time.
82
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 3
Designation of Sensitive Lands Overlays Outside the City Limits
Plans and map designations for lands within the Urban Service Area allow the City and
landowners to make projections about future development opportunities and service
needs. In general, setting out plan designations ahead of actual annexation
applications is good practice. Planning for similar properties together at the same time,
rather than lot-by-lot, is also fundamental to land-use planning. The City's 1997 Urban
Growth Management Agreement with Clackamas County states that the City and the
County will plan jointly for areas within the City Urban Services Area. In practice, the
City has met this requirement by informing the County of its planning actions; the
County has in effect delegated the responsibility of long-range planning for areas within
the Lake Oswego Urban Service Area. The City has in turn set out Comprehensive Plan
Designations and corresponding base zones for all land within its Urban Service Area.
In addition, the City has developed a number of neighborhood and specific area plans
(West Lake Grove) that apply to areas in the County.
The Sensitive Lands Overlay is a zoning overlay. The City has adopted a
Comprehensive Plan Map that shows about 90 acres of County lands that will be
assigned a Sensitive Lands Overlay upon annexation. The reasons for making this
designation is the same as for deciding plan map designation, base zone and
neighborhood plan ahead of time: it allows landowners and the City to make projections
about future development patterns, and it allows the City to determine zoning for groups
of properties together, rather than lot-by-lot.
Because funds were limited when the City's original Natural Resource Inventory was
performed, some areas outside the City were not included in the inventory. In these
areas, the City presently conducts a site inspection and determines the appropriate
Sensitive Lands Overlay (stream, wetland, tree grove, or none) at the time of
annexation. Landowners and buyers cannot be certain what overlay will be assigned
until they apply for annexation. Assigning zoning lot-by-lot seems unfair to some
property owners, because adjacent lots are not assigned sensitive lands zoning at the
same time. Evaluating only a portion of a tree grove or one side of a stream is also a
difficult task for the evaluator.
In addition to the issues of certainty and fairness, there are also process concerns with
completing numerous small Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments. A Comprehensive
Plan amendment must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and this adds several
months to the annexation application process. A single, complex map amendment also
uses fewer staff resources than making a new map amendment for each lot as it
annexes. For these reasons, staff recommends completing the natural resource
inventory for the entire Urban Service Area. The data for this purpose has already been
collected.
83
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 4
Planning and making sensitive lands designations outside the City limits does not allow
the City to regulate land outside its boundaries. In the future, the City and County could
amend their Urban Growth Management Agreement to enforce environmental or other
land-use controls on County land within the City's Urban Service Area. In developing
that IGA, the City and County together would determine what regulations to enforce. In
the meantime, the main impact to landowners of providing Sensitive Lands Overlay
designations would be to simplify voluntary annexations and provide greater certainty
about development options after annexation. During annexation, landowners would still
have the opportunity to challenge the zoning that was assigned.
A secondary impact of completing the inventory would clarify the applicability and
enforcement of Council Resolution 04-38. This Resolution states that the City may
decline to annex properties where significant natural resources have been destroyed.
An inventory of existing resources would provide more clarity to the City and
landowners regarding the location of the resources affected by this Resolution.
Timing of Sensitive Lands Inventory Update and Code Amendments
Planning Staff is currently working on corrections to the Sensitive Lands Atlas and
policy clarifications of the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Code. This raises a significant
issue: should the City resolve code issues first or proceed with the mapping first? For
the reasons outlined below, the Planning staff has been proceeding with the code
modifications before the map amendments. There has been interest in modifying this
program, and Council discussion on this topic would be helpful. The program proposed
by Planning staff is:
1. Corrections of known problems and errors, simplification of review for
very small projects, and changes required to comply with Metro Title 3.
These modifications are the most straightforward, and adopting changes now
enables the City to fix known problems and provide relief to property owners
who undertake small home improvements in the coming year. It will also help
the City meet regional Title 3 and Title 13 commitments in a timely way.
2. Policy clarifications. The group of modifications included here was
separated from the other code revisions by the Planning Commission to keep
the easiest revisions moving forward quickly. However, the items that were
"left behind" were proposed as clarifications, not wholesale revisions of the
program. These clarifications are intended to provide guidance in areas
where staff currently relies on staff-level interpretations, or where the code is
inconsistent. They would not adjust the City's policy direction, but they would
help the existing Sensitive Lands program to function more efficiently.
Especially because the Planning Commission has already initiated
deliberation on these issues and engaged members of the public in their
dialogue, the staff has urged the Commission to complete this work before
84
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 5
moving on to other projects. (Broader changes would be more appropriately
undertaken as part of the Code audit or periodic review)
3. Map amendments. The changes proposed here are in some ways the most
straightforward, because they only update maps based on field data and
established criteria, and do not to make discretionary changes to the existing
program. However, map amendments are often quite difficult for a fraction of
the people affected. These landowners require and deserve time,
information, and staff resources to understand and participate in the map
amendment process. Map amendments will also likely take up a significant
amount of Planning Commission meeting time to thoroughly review the
evidence and hear from all interested parties. Staff has urged the Planning
Commission to complete the current CDC update before undertaking another
project of this magnitude.
Developing the Sensitive Lands Inventory and policy amendments simultaneously
would be a difficult undertaking. During a map amendment process, individual
landowners require and deserve staff and Commission focus on the unique
circumstances of their specific properties. A discussion of policy clarifications should
engage a broad cross-section of the community, including residents who are concerned
about water quality, habitat, and community character generally, but may not be
interested or able to follow the minutiae of site-specific map amendments. If the City
moved forward with map and code amendments simultaneously, it is unlikely that the
Planning Commission or the public would have the opportunity to deliberate on the code
until the maps were resolved.
Metro Titles 3 and 13 Minimum Requirements
The City of Lake Oswego uses the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Community
Development Code to protect both water quality and wildlife habitat. Metro uses two
separate codes to achieve these aims; Title 3 addresses water quality, and Title 13
addresses habitat. To demonstrate that it is meeting its regional commitments, the City
must show that the Sensitive Lands Chapter is adequate for both purposes.
Title 3
The City's Sensitive Lands Chapter is different in many respects from the Metro code
for Title 3. City staff believes that the City's development code fails to meet Title 3
minimum standards only with respect to the specific items described on pages 9-10 of
this report—the changes proposed to comply with Title 3. However, there are other
significant differences: mainly that the City applies protections to tree groves adjacent to
streams, which Metro does not require for Title 3, and at the same time, the City
maintains stream buffers that appear to be 40% smaller than Metro's minimum.
85
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 6
City and Metro staff worked for several years to reach a tentative agreement on stream
buffer widths. The differences between the two buffer systems are summarized in the
table below:
Comparison of Metro and Lake Oswego
Stream Buffer Requirements
Metro Protected Water Features (Metro Code Section 3.07.340(B(2)(a)))
Protected Water I Slope Adjacent to I Starting Point for Width of Vegetated
Feature Type Protected Water Measurements from Corridor
(see definitions) Feature Water Feature
Primary Protected < 25% Edge of bankfull 50 feet
Water Features 1 flow or 2-year
storm level; Delineated
edge of Title 3 wetland
Primary Protected > 25%for 150 feet Edge of bankfull 200 feet
Water Features 1 or mores flow or 2-year storm
level; Delineated edge
i of Title 3 wetland
Primary Protected > 25% for less than Edge of bankfull Distance from starting
Water Features 150 feet 5 flow or 2-year point of measurement
storm level; Delineated to top of ravine (break
edge of Title 3 wetland in > 25% slope) 3, plus
50 feet. 4
Secondary Protected j < 25% Edge of bankfull 15 feet
Water Features 2 flow or 2-year
storm level; Delineated
edge of Title 3 wetland
Secondary Protected > 25% 5 Edge of bankfull 50 feet
Water Features 2 flow or 2-year storm
level; Delineated edge
of Title 3 wetland
Lake Oswego Water Resource Buffers
Class I Water All slopes I Top of bank or edge of 30 feet
Resource6 wetland
Class II Water All slopes Top of bank or edge of 25 feet
Resource' wetland
1 Primary Protected Water Features include: all perennial streams and streams draining greater than
100 acres, Title 3 wetlands, natural lakes and springs
2 Secondary Protected Water Features include intermittent streams draining 50-100 acres.
3 Where the Protected Water Feature is confined by a ravine or gully, the top of ravine is the break in the
> 25% slope (see slope measurement in Appendix).
4 A maximum reduction of 25 feet may be permitted in the width of vegetated corridor beyond the slope
break if a geotechnical report demonstrates that slope is stable. To establish the width of the vegetated
corridor, slope should be measured in 25-foot increments away from the water feature until slope is less
than 25% (top of ravine).
5 Vegetated corridors in excess of 50-feet for primary protected features, or in excess of 15-feet for
secondary protected features, apply on steep slopes only in the uphill direction.
6 Class I water resources include: resources with Habitat Assessment Score above 50 (high habitat
value).
7 Class II water resources include: resources with Habitat Assessment Score greater than 35, less than
50 (medium habitat value).
86
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 7
To narrate the table: Metro defines streams as either primary or secondary, according to
their drainage area and whether they flow intermittently or perennially. It requires 50-
foot vegetated buffers along all perennial streams and streams draining more than 100
acres. In contrast, the City classifies streams according to the Habitat Assessment
Score, and assigns only 30-foot buffers to resources with high habitat values. However,
Metro measures the buffer from the two-year storm level, while the City measures from
the topographic break in slope (as shown in the diagrams on pages 16-21 of this
report). The City's method usually captures some extra area. The City also gives
protections to tree groves adjacent streams.
Metro staff has tentatively agreed that Lake Oswego's buffers are substantially in
compliance with Metro requirements. With this understanding, and with the other code
changes proposed here, the City can comply with Title 3.
Title 13
Metro's Title 13 allows cities to achieve compliance with the Title through any program
or group of programs that meets Metro's performance objectives. The objectives may
be summarized as:
• Preserve and improve streamside, wetland, and flood area habitat and connectivity.
• Preserve large areas of contiguous habitat and avoid fragmentation.
• Preserve and improve connectivity for wildlife between riparian corridors and upland
wildlife habitat.
• Preserve and improve special habitats of concern.
In addition to these requirements, cities must be in compliance with Title 3 to be in
compliance with Title 13; Title 3 is a prerequisite.
Staff believes that the City's current Sensitive Lands chapter, combined with the Tree
Code and natural area park acquisition and management, will enable the City to
substantially comply with Title 13 by meeting these objectives. Additional policy
clarifications resulting from the Community Development Code update may also
contribute to Title 13 compliance. However, if efforts at policy clarification result in a
reduction in the protections for water quality and habitat resources, the City may lose its
ability to comply with Titles 3 and 13 using the Sensitive Lands Chapter.
Metro does provide a model code as one means to meet the above performance
objectives, although it does not require cities to adopt this code. Some major
differences between Metro's model code and the City's sensitive lands chapter are:
(table next page)
87
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 8
Comparison of Habitat Protection Strategies:
Metro Model Code and Lake Oswego Development Code
Issue Metro Lake Oswego
Protection of upland Limited protections, only Protection for forested
habitat areas for areas added to the upland habitat areas
Urban Growth Boundary regardless of date of
after 2006. development.
Low-impact Provides incentives to use Permits them
development practices them
Mitigation requirements Described in detail Not described
Creation of tracts for Required Encouraged
habitat protection during
subdivision process
Variances to resource Allowed only to prevent a Allowed for many reasons,
protection buffers taking or unreasonable does not require
hardship unreasonable hardship
Resource delineation Streamlined approach Same approach always
when boundaries are applied; relies on
uncontested; relies on professional surveyor
aerial photo
Discretionary versus Two-track system: clear One-track system
clear and objective standards or discretionary
standards for review process for
development review on projects that provide equal
resource lots benefits with different
approach
Detailed requirements Not addressed except Addressed in detail in the
for fences, driveways, through broad "avoid, code.
lighting, other elements minimize, mitigate"
of development standard
Non-conforming Allows replacement in Requires replacement to
structures destroyed by footprint be conforming (Infill
natural hazard proposal may modify this.)
There are many other smaller differences between the Metro model code and Lake
Oswego's code, but this table captures the majority of significant differences in the two
approaches. Under Title 13, both approaches are valid as long as they achieve the
performance standards.
This concludes the general discussion portion of the report. The following section
addresses the specific changes already recommended by the Planning Commission.
88
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 9
Sensitive Lands Chapter Specific Amendments (LU07-0051(A))
In September 2008, the Planning Commission opened public hearings on a set of
updates to the entire Community Development Code. They began their review with the
Sensitive Lands chapter of the Code. The Commission reviewed a number of both
minor and substantive changes proposed by staff.
Through deliberation, the Commission separated out one group of proposed changes
as relatively straightforward, necessary, and timely, and recommended those changes
move forward to Council. They agreed to continue discussions on other substantive,
discretionary changes. The changes the Commission recommended move forward
related to four main purposes:
1. Meeting Metro Titles 3 and 13
2. Clarifying terms and correcting errors and omissions
3. Improving graphics
4. Simplifying review of very small projects (e.g. repairs).
The changes related to each topic are discussed below, section by section. For
reference, the text of the code changes is also included as Attachment B.
Changes to comply with Metro Titles 3 and 13
In our region, Metro sets the implementation rules for State Planning Goals. In 1998,
Metro adopted Title 3 to implement the water quality element of State Planning Goal 6.
Although the City's Sensitive lands program nearly meets the requirements of Title 3, a
few changes are required to fully comply. The City did not meet the deadline for
revising its code and is out of compliance with this Title.
In 2006, Metro adopted Title 13, which implements the habitat protection element of
State Planning Goal 5. The Title 13 deadline was January, 2009, so the City is currently
out of compliance. A city can meet the performance standards of Title 13 with a variety
of innovative programs; staff anticipates that Lake Oswego will be able to comply
through existing habitat protection efforts. Compliance with Title 3 is an additional
prerequisite.
Ultimately, the Metro will determine whether the City complies with Titles 3 and 13.
Based on discussions with Metro staff, staff understands that the following changes are
the minimum necessary to meet the requirements of Title 3, and the Planning
Commission has therefore recommended the following modifications:
50.02.005 Definitions
Add a definition of"perennial stream" because the term is used later in this code
section. "Perennial stream" is defined as a stream that runs year-round (a
conventional definition).
50.16.005 Overview
State additional purposes of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, to: protect human
health, protect wildlife habitat, comply with State Land Use Goals 5 and 6,
89
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 10
comply with Metro Code sections 3 and 13, and comply with Federal laws such
as the Clean Water Act.
50.16.020 Criteria for Designating Property Within an Overlay District
Expand the definition of "significant resource" to include all perennial streams
and all wetlands that provide significant water-quality and flood-control functions,
even if they are not particularly valuable wildlife habitat.
Provide a mechanism and timeline (90 days) for initiating map updates when
errors or omissions are found.
50.16.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation
Allow a designation to be removed if the applicant (which can be the City) shows
that it was mapped in the wrong location. This is the corollary to the ability to
designate a new resource.
50.16.035 Delineation of Resources
Apply the resource buffer from the top of a slope, for wetlands on steep slopes.
50.16.060 RC District Development Standards
Prohibit hazardous materials storage in RC (tree grove) areas, except in
quantities for household use.
50.16.075 RP District Development Standards
Prohibit hazardous materials storage in RP (water resource) areas except in
quantities for household use.
With the adoption of these changes, City staff believes the Lake Oswego development
code will meet the requirements of Title 3.
Corrections and Clarifications: "Housekeeping"
A few code sections contain errors, are unclear, or are apparently contradictory. In
these cases, City staff, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, has made
interpretations as to the intended meaning. The Planning Commission reviewed these
corrections and interpretations and recommends the following changes as
"housekeeping" revisions:
50.16.005 Overview
Correct the scale of maps (an error).
50.16.015 Applicability
Adjust the boundaries within which development is reviewed so that the area that
triggers environmental review and the area regulated by that review are the
same, and will remain so even if the buffer requirements are changed.
Currently, the area that triggers environmental review is slightly smaller than the
area regulated under that review.
90
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 11
50.16.020 Criteria for Designating Property Within an Overlay District
Explain acronyms and eliminate a confusing use of"former" and later."
50.16.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation
Allow an applicant to effectively remove a resource designation by delineating a
resource as having zero land area (non-existent). Landowners must have a way
to apply for map corrections on individual tax lots, and this is the method already
in use. This simply describes the process more clearly in the Code.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the City refund any application
fee if the resource area is determined to be zero.
50.16.035 Delineation of Resources
Clarify that a stream or wetland itself cannot also be considered a tree grove, but
the resource buffer may contain a tree grove. The code does not explicitly allow
or disallow using water resource buffer as part of a required tree grove; staff
have interpreted this as being allowed, since the stream buffer may also protect
trees, and if it were not counted as tree protection area, more lots would become
totally encumbered.
Eliminate the "equivalent methodology" option for delineating wetlands; the City
always uses the process proscribed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
50.16.055 RC District Protection Areas
Restate the criteria for designating RCPA to say that it shall "consist of viable
habitat" instead of"maintain viable habitat"; the word "maintain" seems to imply
ongoing maintenance obligations. The understanding has always been that the
RCPA should have viable habitat in it when it is designated.
50.16A60 RC District Development Standards
Changes here all relate to specific development practices:
Clarify that the driveway may pass through an RCPA on one property to serve
the buildable area of an adjacent property. (The old text suggested the buildable
area had to be on the same lot as the driveway, and could not be an easement
serving an adjacent lot, apparently an error.)
Set the same standard for public streets, bus stops, and lake trams as for
driveways—they can be located in the RCPA when there is no other practicable
access method.
Specifically allow regional trails in the RCPA. This supports the Trails and
Pathways Master Plan already adopted by the City, and recognizes that some
91
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 12
trails (e.g. the Willamette River Greenway) serve both recreational and
transportation purposes.
Employ consistent use of the word "street" (as opposed to "roadway," or "private
street,"); eliminate references to driveways, which are "private streets."
Clarify that when a portion of the RCPA is developed as a street or driveway,
additional land shall be set aside to maintain an equal area of protection. The
code has been applied this way, but the current wording is difficult to understand.
Allow a vertical addition to a structure already located in a resource area when
the structure maintains its existing footprint and complies with other applicable
development codes (e.g. height limits and setbacks). Reasoning: if a structure
already exists, making it taller will not have a significant additional environmental
impact, and is often environmentally preferable to demolition.
Allow temporary construction activities around existing structures, such as tools
and scaffolding required to make repairs.
Define wildlife-friendly fences as being a fence that is 4 feet tall or less with one
foot of clearance at the bottom, or any other design approved by the reviewing
authority.
Allow tunneling under a resource when no damage will result.
Require that alternations to drainage patterns do not damage the resource area
(e.g. do not drown protected trees).
50.16.065 Resource Protection (RP) District Environmental Review
Standards;Applicability and Purpose
The title of this section is corrected to refer to "Resource Protection" rather than
"Resource Preservation." These terms were not used consistently in the original
code.
The first sentence of this section (no subsection) corrects a reference to itself as
a "standard"; the purpose statement does not contain any standards.
50.16.070 RP District Buffer and Structure/Improvement Construction
Setback Requirements
Provide a consolidated list of buffers and setbacks, for ease of use.
50.16.075 RP District Development Standards
A number of changes related to specific practices are addressed:
92
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 13
Clarify situations where trees can be removed from a resource area: (a) when the
tree is hazardous, (b) when the tree removal is part of an approved development
project (e.g. trail, utility corridor), and (c) when the tree removal is part of a
resource enhancement project (e.g. an invasive tree). The section would also
allow for limited removal, with a requirement to retain downed wood for habitat
purposes.
Allow tunneling under a resource if it does not damage the resource.
Clarify the situations when driveways and streets are necessarily located in
resource areas, and allow regional trails in resource areas. (The same changes
as the RC standards.)
Remove the word "new" from the requirement that "new structures, parking
areas, active use recreational facilities, streets and driveways shall be set back at
least 10 feet from an RP district buffer." This means that both new and
remodeled structures should be set back 10 feet (e.g., primary structures within
10 feet of the resource buffer are nonconforming).
Clarify that lights are a structure that should be set back 3 feet from the resource
buffer, and should not shine into the district from outside.
Implement standards for wildlife-friendly fences in RP (water resource) areas, as
discussed above for protected tree groves; prohibit fences that are actually within
wetlands and small streams.
Clarify standards for resource enhancement projects: they may enhance the
riparian buffer rather than the stream bed itself, they may not cause permanent
degradation, and they must result in some improvement to the resource or buffer.
They must use plants from the City's approved plant list.
Prohibit lot line adjustments that create lots totally encumbered by resource;
clarify that new lots may be created if they take access over an existing road or
driveway that is within a resource area.
50.16.090 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal
Clarify that exempt (maintenance) activities such as debris removal do not
require mitigation.
50.16.095 Construction Standards
This section addresses the temporary impacts of construction. A number of
changes related to specific practices are addressed:
Add the RP district buffer to list of areas that should be protected during
construction (this omission was apparently unintentional).
93
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 14
Increase the height of required resource protection fences to 6 feet, to match
requirements for tree protection fences.
Provide for "alternative methods" of resource protection when a fence is
impractical or unnecessary.
Clarify that no "permanent" draining is allowed, but that streams or wetlands may
be temporarily de-watered during construction.
Require that surface water runoff be managed to prevent adverse impacts to RP
districts, i.e. development should not cause wetlands to dry up, or erode streams
with excessive flows.
50.16.105 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required
Add the RP resource buffer to the list of areas where development requires
mitigation; its omission was apparently unintentional.
50.16.110 Mitigation Requirements
Mitigation required due to violation of City Code may require a maintenance and
monitoring plan. Maintenance and monitoring plans should include a timeline
and measurable goals.
In addition to the code changes listed above, three modifications were made repeatedly
in a number of different code sections. For efficiency, they were not listed repeatedly.
They are:
• All references to "nuisance" "restoration" and "native" plant lists were
consolidated to refer to a single master plant list.
• References to the "City Manager" were replaced with "Reviewing Authority" if the
review could be delegated or appealed to someone other than the City Manager.
• Some lists of criteria were re-ordered and renumbered for clarity; if the text was
not modified, the change was not called out.
Improved Graphics
Administration of the code depends upon the application of diagrams that show where
resources are located and how their boundaries are determined. The proposed
changes are not intended to modify the meaning of these visual aids, but they would
provide more realistic pictures and descriptive text to make the diagrams more
understandable. These changes would also amend administration of the atlas so that it
would show not only streams, wetlands, and tree groves, but also the required buffers
around streams and wetlands, in order to give a more realistic impression of the area
affected by the code. The specific changes are:
94
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 15
50.16.005 Overview
Require that City atlases show not only the resource but also the RP buffer
areas, since development is restricted in RP buffer areas. This adjustment would
not change the methodology for calculating the buffer, or the regulations that
apply to the buffer. This change would only allow the buffer to be shown in the
atlas, so that landowners could better understand where regulations apply.
50.16.035 Delineation of Resources
Subsection (3) repeats the requirement that atlases show the resource buffer as
well as the resource.
Appendix 50.16 B Delineating Stream Corridors
This section illustrates how stream corridors are delineated in the City. Changes
are proposed to the diagrams to make them more legible and to better reflect
common site conditions. The significant improvements proposed are to:
a) Define a "steep slope" as a slope of 25% or greater; the code refers to
"steep slopes" but there is no numeric standard;
b) Measure the top of bank from the edge of fill rather than estimating the
pre-fill boundary, since determining a past condition is difficult and often
seems subjective; and
c) Define the top of bank of a stream at a culvert, because no method is
currently provided.
The old and new diagrams are compared on the following pages:
95
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 16
New Diagram
5gc:5d,Ida:I./dor Sound:.y agiond edge da channel
11,1111e, Y15
,5111:-
Stream Corridor 5
Constructlon ' 10' 10' Construction
Setback 10 (, 30' Buffer 30' Buffer? Setback 10'
Fiat Land Stream <20' Wkle
No wetlands, steep slopes, or culverts
Fig. 1 (above): New diagram showing stream corridor boundary for small flatland stream.
Fig.2(below): Old diagram showing stream corridor boundary for small flatland stream.
Old Diagram
ci
Vi c'3"
)1414+ftvi
4 ) 4)
It 0 ,
4,4 4, Z•V%Vi
Ar °/01iY • % \\\\
0414V IP 4, on 4 '
d .44 --Edge of
,.(„1, '44404,.` str.am Carrdor
Channe
Duffer 10' (L ;7L Buffer
ET
‘11111i.j, EFTEIrr,1
Figure A 2
—71-11J—T
FTATLA ND S 'Il-bTAMS
(NO WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS, OR STEEP SLOPES)
96
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 17
New Diagram
Stream Corridor
construction Construction
Setback 10 '30' ;Wier 10' 10' 30' Butler Setback 10'
—Or
1
Line
nryti!efir ansm ,r-yr
Fla tem > it
• wetlands, steep sl pes, or culverts
Fig. 3 (above): New diagram showing stream corridor boundary for wide flatland stream.
Fig. 4(below): Old diagram showing stream corridor boundary for wide flatland streams
•
go, Old Diagram
40111 1,40
11/14 0•40; f0 44
0'41r 4, 44
Viz
Isv„ n2 c:21r jdok ,
Ecge of
Buffer (r/ 10' Buffer Channel
1
[1,171-r11
-wn-LTrqtrrifr I M
7 PIT
Flgtire
177,AT LAND S T EAMS
(NC) WETLANDS, FLOOD .PL.I INS, OR STEEP SLOPES)
97
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 18
New Diagram
Stream Corridor
ri----- l 10'
I
Construction r o
, Constuctin
Setback 10' 30, Suffer ft,,,11-' Wetland ice„t,, 30' A utter Setback 10'
I ,--.. .---------; " —tit Li
•%"'" t 11
- ' -L.--
t rea ,
Stream r-orridor boundary remains at least 10'from the stream centerline
a both sides. ,etland boundattes are delineated according to the
1987 Corps of Engineers Manual.
Fig. 5 (above): New diagram showing stream corridor boundary for stream with wetlands.
Fig. 6 (below): Old diagram showing stream corridor boundary for stream with wetlands.
O• 'Li,.
Old Diagram
,,fed ,*
)
ikd• : 4... f.i. t - -, c < ., ,2.',,,! k \
, .
Edge of
1; - ------ -----
-- Ch(inn&
W tiand Bu t"1 er
1-4-- 1.1 ----
1.1.;11jV4.
71 i itri , ifiL ri-7-1
- ,-/-- I Figure 0
r-,i -I
S TEA FA 14 S' W 17'11 AS'S'OCIATED kV 11,AN AS
-----_--------7-------- -_-----:5=7- ___- --____,- -____ _____,-- -____,
98
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 19
New Diagram
Construction f; . -,-'' r,:„ Construc ton
Setback 10'--.. 30' Buffer i'i,-C 30' Buffer ,""- Setback 10'
T-
! ; Alki i,i11' 1011 1 . 1,_ Stream Corridor
, -,, .' ,',,,..A. II; ,,' 1 •-oritrr 'll, - ,
/ E loo , ,, '-"L,:i Fiat Land •---
I FIat 1.. ild k, ze LL.s. 7 ''. ', f- L
-rsr.-----
l'i% L'' •ii 201."------7?; -- -- -.-'-------------
-, z . ,,.'",` ",,. ' skoPe -=',,,-----q ..,--m.-- ------
"-*.,' _....------ „....-
''''Sc(4, 1 r-'7--;.—.,e '-'---f*
----5;m":::: s_..,,-'2.2.---- -
t ) :,---------
,:;;';;4 rea , s \. , th Steel, ' '+-i,',,,,*,,,s or 'i"4:',:: vines
Steep Movies nre equal to or greater
than 25% measured as ilSe. [run.
i.,1
Fig. 7 (above): New diagram showing stream corridor boundary for stream in ravine.
Fig. 8 (below): Old diagram showing stream corridor boundary for stream in ravine.
Old Diagram
•
Ituifer Str eon Co,r1clor J._ , Buffer _ .,..
Nolural Slope Eireok
/ -Plone of Flat Land
/
/ r is-Pi- -A - i- -
-fil;;7,iwia
------. noturut Slope BrpnIE
'----
-4--F
0,
43>
I
.5>
Pr
ilk r0-
rl. I 7
--Ta --
'1- : 11_, ..IF1 Fqpre C
STREIMS WITH RAVINES OR STEEP SLOPES
9 9
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 20
New Diagram
Stream Corridor
Construction "i'", --'-,t,;''', ------r— truction
Setback 10' 30' Buffer30' Buffer Setbaci 10'
t Stream
Line
4
,1f1,,,
die'
..,..-4.1 1
---
I
Flat Land f ‘" inactive slide may form
edge of stream corridor
Estimate fop of hank , ,,t, 4
for illegal fill only. 4-
\
„ .
The floodplain in a ravine is not
the edge of the stream corridor
T_40._
r a ,,- s ,,.It 't T:o, ' ' ;''. s. r Ic ‘, 4. ri ,,,..ti4 .. s
The edge of stream corridor may be defined by nonconfornring fill, but not illegal fill®
Where illegal filling occurred, the pre.development top of bank is estimated,
Fig. 9 (above): NEW diagram showing stream corridor boundary for sites with varied terrain.
Fig. 10 (below): OLD diagram showing stream corridor boundary for varied terrain.
Old Diagram
Duller Str PC%Lorr,ctor,
1°col Depressloo'
"Slump'
"5Irtle
_,---"Projection o4 Clearly Denneoble
„..---" %earn Carrlder Boundary PolnIA
---- FT orn Upstream ord 01.5rkstreon,
— ------ . -
,---'
,..--•
•,, ..,-. r,-IT'r
— 0.1151—111
111—
TB
\r,
NI
FC--- -
-111-,11-11}- ''''
r
-,-._ ,
,
rri....
1EL r--
'111,-.1.11i
,
_
i
-11
-fl'-"
I
-11 1--
-1-1T-rF F apre D,
STREAMS WITH TOPOGRAPHIC VARIATIONS
1 00
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 21
:: New Diagram
Buffer extends over road
r
.✓ .w�
$ »� wxa
r
«....<.,..._.-..,._,...w.,..,.......,.,..,— ♦, .,,.......ten .-.".c.-,.eu....� ...»...,- -
� v
3 ' Buffer CLL
r 1, '- z4 .,:_'/' .a,-
t.
r' " k,,.., Buffer arcs « round culvert
4oftopofbare
f.
L.ff "'riv ,
Fig 11 (above) and Fig. 12 (below)These two new diagrams show buffers on culverts. They do not
replace old diagrams.
, _ New Diagram ,
'. L...,. 7 '
.a.--- ...... ..i4L_ ,,..m .. .,.,..ralt.'''- •
_.Top of bank of culvert fir• e
_,.:> "" at same contour as l t '
e'"` ` break in slope 4 ,
4,0 \ \
, \\ \\ 14 /
C/l
45'
/ _ Culvert \\\
'1113 ., / a6l tfall IRII?t � 1 �_,
�.. ...� ♦"—'�3 /t —. ._....—.. 1®8
�;'0 r f r J break In slope a` g
/ j t I I ,'[ along stream _ r
1. ti i r',l r s
!( , i , , , . ;,r
r r ( �. _ ,. —.r "k,• -':.'L-../,,4..d '-"• _ _ 94
Top of Bank of Culvert - Ravine or Steep Slope.
101
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 22
Simplification of the review process
The City's code now sets a high standard, requiring review of all land disturbance within
a resource area. This means that projects which would be exempt from review if they
took place outside the resource district — repair of existing structures, pathways,
planting native vegetation —technically require review in a formal land-use application
when they take place on sensitive lands. Staff and landowners generally find the review
process burdensome for very small projects. In these cases, the review often does not
provide much environmental benefit, except the opportunity to discuss the project and
recommend best construction practices to the builder (e.g. recommend native plants,
describe how to install temporary protective fencing). Taken together, this group of
changes eliminates formal review of very small projects, and simply requires
landowners to use best practices. With these changes, the City would continue to
provide information and code enforcement to ensure that best practices were employed.
The following specific changes are proposed:
50.16.015 Applicability
Modify the standard for environmental review so that it is triggered by
"development" rather than "land disturbance." Land disturbance is not defined in
the code, but has been interpreted to mean literally any action that scratches the
surface of the earth. Development is defined in the code as "Any man-made
change to improved or unimproved real property, including, but not limited to,
construction, installation or alteration of a building or other structure, change of
use, land division, establishment or termination of a right of access, storage on
the land, grading, clearing, removal or placement of soil, paving, dredging, filling,
excavation, drilling or removal of trees." While this still includes a broad array of
activities, it is a more reasonable and well-understood trigger for review than
"land disturbance."
50.16.015 Applicability
Create an exception to review requirements so that development (as defined
above) that does not create any new structures or permanently remove any
native vegetation does not require environmental review (e.g. replacement of an
existing deck or planting a tree).
50.16.030 Environmental Review
This section is added to set standards for small projects that are technically
"development" and that would trigger the applicability standards above, but that
would be exempt if they did not take place in sensitive lands. Exempt
development is defined in Lake Oswego Code section 50.79.005 as landscaping,
repairs, construction of structures that do not require a building permit, interior
remodeling, exterior remodeling that does not require a building permit, street
vacations, and temporary structures and uses.
102
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 23
The section states that projects exempt from review must still meet the
development standards for the district, comply with construction standards (e.g.
erosion control), follow the avoid and minimize approach, and mitigate any
anticipated impacts.
50.16.035 Delineation of Resources
Eliminate the requirement for resource delineation for projects that consist solely
of resource enhancement, landscaping, or tree removal that is compatible with
resource protection. Professional delineation and surveying are costly, and
requiring delineation discourages private landowners from carrying out resource
enhancement projects, which by definition create a public benefit.
50.16.075 RP District Development Standards
Specifically allow signs and kiosks as accessory uses to roads, trails and public
facilities. This change recognizes that while signs are technically "development,"
directional and interpretative signs are normal and desirable adjacent roads and
trails. This section does not exempt any signs from the Sign Code, and it says
signs/kiosks with a footprint greater than 12 square feet must be reviewed
separately.
These are all the Sensitive Lands chapter code changes recommended at this time.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The Council may choose to move forward with the specific code changes described on
pages 9-23 at the Public Hearing on March 3, or it may direct staff to modify these
proposals in consultation with the Planning Commission.
Regardless of action on the current set of code amendments, the Council may also
direct staff to move forward with policy clarifications for the Sensitive Lands program or
to make map amendments a higher priority. Additionally, Council may request
proposals for a broad review and revision of the Sensitive Lands Program, as part of
Periodic Review, the planned Code audit, or as a separate planning work task.
There are not any quantifiable fiscal impacts in adopting the proposed code changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the most straightforward code changes move ahead in March;
they will improve the functioning of the program, enable the City to apply for
acknowledgement of Titles 3 and 13 compliance, and provide some relief for property
owners who undertake small improvements in the coming year. The Planning
Commission has already reviewed and recommended these changes.
103
Council Report
01/25/2009
Page 24
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission continue in their current course to
complete the entire Community Development Code update this spring, including policy
clarifications to the Sensitive Lands Code. Staff recognizes and supports a
comprehensive review of the Sensitive Lands Program; this could move forward as part
of Periodic Review, the planned code audit, or be developed as a separate project of
the Planning Division. Meanwhile, staff would continue to develop the analysis and
public engagement program required to finish the map update, with the goal of opening
Planning Commission hearings this summer. Staff will recommend that when the map
changes move forward, all area with the City's Urban Service Area be included in the
inventory.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Amendments to the Sensitive Lands Provisions of the
Lake Oswego Community Development Code
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. 61)
Department Director
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
104
Ordinance 2527
Attachment B
As reviewed by the Planning Commission on
November 24, 2008
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SENSITIVE LANDS
PROVISIONS OF THE
LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
(LOC CHAPTER 50) [ANNOTATED]
General Notes:
1. The general purposes of the update to the Sensitive Lands provisions is to:
correct errors in text or reference; clarify text which has been found to be confusing by
codifying the Planning Division's interpretation;resolve conflicts between code sections;
simplify code provisions; and Comply with Metro's Title 3 and Title 13 requirements.
Although this update continues the 2002 reorganization purpose of"streamlining and
clarifying",it also contains proposed amendments which are substantive.
2. Commentary has been included following most of the proposed amendments.
This commentary,marked with yellow highlight and indented following the code section
or subsection proposed for amendment,is intended as a brief summary of the reasons
underlying the proposed amendment. It was prepared during the editing process. It
'is
intended to be helpful,but was not scrutinized to the same degree as the proposed
amendments.
Attachment A
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 1 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
105
Article 50.02
DEFINITIONS
Section 50.02.005 Definitions
Stream,Perennial: a stream or part of a stream that flows continuously above ground during
years of average or near-average rainfall, as a result of ground-water discharge or surface runoff.
This definition is added due to the amendments to the Sensitive Lands Article and the use
of this term in that Article.
Stream Corridor. A stream corridor is an area of land that includes both a stream and the area
ten feet on either side of the centerline of the stream and any area beyond ten feet that includes a
set of natural features generally associated with the stream. See Appendix 50.16.035-A. These
natural features include, stream channels, flood plains,wetlands,riparian vegetation, associated
vegetation, steep slopes, and habitat features. A stream corridor generally includes the following:
This amendment states in text what is illustrated in Appendix 50.16-B,Figure A--that
the minimum width of the stream corridor is 20 feet(10 feet on either side of the
centerline of the stream),but may be wider to include the associated stream vegetation
and slopes. Appendix 50,16.035-A illustrates the manner of establishing the stream
corridor:
The term"top of bank"has previously been used to describe the stream corridor,but this
term is sometimes confusing,because the edge of the resource may be beyond the
topographic break, The more correct"stream corridor boundary"therefore replaces"top
of bank"for clarity.
Article 50.16
SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Section 50.16.005 Overview
1. Purpose, LOC Article 50.16 creates the Resource Protection (RP) and Resource
Conservation(RC)District overlay districts to:
such-gam-wed-ands,_stream.-eorri s,-and-tree groves-
(a)protect wildlife habitat
(b)protect and improve water quality
(c)control and prevent water pollution for the protection of public health and safety
(d)comply with federal laws including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species
Act
(e)comply with State Land Use Goal 5
(f)conmply with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plarl.
-1-2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map: The overlay districts and their associated buffers
shall be designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map. The purpose of these maps
is to give a general overview as to the location of the districts and the associated buffers and is not
intended to show the precise location of the district boundaries.
23. Sensitive Land Atlas: The boundaries of the districts and their associated buffers shall be
shown on individual property maps at a scale of 1:200-300in the Sensitive Lands (SL)Atlas. The
SL Atlas is intended to govern the applicability of LOC Article 50.16 pursuant to LOC 50.16.015.
The SL Atlas shall be adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 2 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
106
The Code does not presently identify water quality as a primary function of the Sensitive
Lands Article; however,water quality is the purpose of Goal 5.
Sensitive. Lands are now shown on the SL Atlas and Zoning maps without the buffer.
However, development is regulated within the buffer. This change requires that the
resource buffer be shown on City atlases to provide more information to citizens about the
area where development may be restricted. This does riot change the WaY buffers are
applied or regulated.
The scale of the maps is corrected to 1:300,rather than 1:200.
Section 50.16.015 Applicability
1. This Article applies to all lands designated as RP or RC on the Sensitive Lands Map and
Atlas.
2. Sensitive Lands Development Review Required.
a. Development that would result in any land disturbance within:
The trigger for applicability is returned to "development" rather than a limited form of
development, i.e., land disturbance,because it is consistent with the original LODS 3 and
4 thresholds. (It was changed to"land disturbance"but there was no legislative history as
to why the change from"development"to"land disturbance.") Development is permitted
above existing structures, so long as there is no impact upon the vegetation(see exception
3(c))below. This issue was previously addressed in the Debar Formal Interpretation.
i. The RP District, or the area adjacent the District that would form the District
Buffer the-RP--e-r-RC-Distriet,or within 3-5-fhetof the RI'District bound-aryl
Buffers vary from 25-30 feet and could be changed in the future, so the recommendation
is to reference the buffer and not a specific distance.
ii. The RC District or within 5 feet of the RC District boundary-- or
iii. The construction setbacks established by LOC 50.16.075(4)
(as the boundaries are shown on maps in the Sensitive Lands Atlas", shall be subject to the
standards and criteria identified in LOC 50.16.030.
The review area surrounding an RP District is expanded to include all the area that might
be regulated as part of the stream corridor buffer. 1,0C 50.16.070 and 50.16.075(2)(A)(v).
The 5 foot review buffer for the RC District is created because of the 5 foot construction
buffer to protect tree roots, already established under LOC 50,16.060(3)(b). Finally
reference to the RP construction buffer is added, so that any construction outside of the
buffer but within the construction setback is also applicable to this Article. This
amendment merely groups,in one place, all of the areas protected under this Article.
bb. Land divisions, lot line adjustments, mitigation proposals, and adjustments of a
District Boundary shall be subject to the standards and criteria identified in LOC 50.16.030.
cc. To the degree that any requirement of LOC Article 50.16 conflicts with a requirement
of the underlying zone,Article 50.16 shall prevail.
3. Exception: The provisions in LOC Article 50.16 shall not apply to:
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 3 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
107
a. A resource located within the boundaries of a partition, subdivision, Planned
Development,or lot line adjustment,approved prior to August 21, 1997 if:
i. The resource was identified and protected pursuant to regulations in effect at the
time of approval; and the "regulations in effect at the time of approval" would not include tree
groves,because LOC 3 and 4 did not relate to tree groves.
ii. The proposed development is in compliance with the conditions protecting the
resource imposed at the time of approval. Any modification of the prior approved partition,
subdivision, or planned development that would impact or modify any protection measures
imposed at the time of original approval shall be subject to the standards and criteria of this
Article.
b. Resource restoration required as a result of violation of this Article or pursuant to
settlement of a potential enforcement action by the City Manager, subject to City Manager
approval of the restoration plan and procedures, and compliance with the Construction Standards
set forth in LOC 50.16.095.
c. Development that meets all of the following criteria:
i. The development does not result in any new permanent structure or development
within the RP or RC District, or its associated buffer, except the replacement or
vertical expansion of an existing non-conforming structure, within the footprint of the
non-conforming structure; and
ii. The development does not remove any vegetation designated as native vegetation
in the Lake Oswego Plants List, and
iii. All replacement vegetation used is listed as "native vegetation" in the Lake
Oswego Plants List.
Staff Comment: The
purpose of this amendment is to
allow development
which doesn't result in new structures (replacement of non-conforming
structures are permitted, i.e., patio, deck), there is no removal of native
vegetation, and any replacement vegetation is from the native plant list within
the City's Plants List
4. Wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves that are not contained within a RP or RC
District shall not be subject to the regulations of this Article. However, an application for
development that impacts a stream corridor or wetland may still be subject to state or federal
wetland or stream regulations. Notice of such applications will be sent to the Division of State
Lands (DSL)or the Army Corp. of Engineers.
5. In addition to the notification required for the particular development by LOC Articles
50.80 - 50.82, the City shall notify the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army Corp. of
Engineers upon receipt of a complete application for development, change or intensification of use
within an RP District that impacts a wetland or stream corridor.
6. Mitigation Required for Violation. If development occurs in violation of this Article, the
violator shall not only be subject to any and all enforcement and penalties that can be brought or
imposed for violation of this Code,...;...he or she shall be responsible for mitigating any damage
caused by the violation to a protected resource pursuant to LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110.
Section 50.16.020 Criteria for Designating Property Within An Overlay District
I. Goal 5 Analysis Required. In order to include an individual property, a portion of a
property, or a group of properties within an RP or RC Overlay District, the reviewing body shall
find that the resource on the site or sites has been ranked and evaluated through an Economic,
Social, Environmental,_and_Energy —(ESEE) Process analysis Analysis in compliance with
Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5 and merits a Resource Protection (RP) and/or Resource
Conservation(RC)designation.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 4 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
108
This spells out the acronym ESEE for clarity. The term is defined in LOC 50.02.005:
ESEE Process Analysis. The Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy
Analysis required under Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5. The purpose of the
ESEE analysis is to balance the relative value of an inventoried natural resource
against conflicting uses and thereby determine an appropriate level of protection
through land use regulations. The ESEE Analysis that formed the factual basis for
the Sensitive Lands Program (LOC Article 50.10 and was used initially to designate
properties for protection under the program is the Lake Oswego Resource Areas
Report and ESEE Analysis,dated April 1, 1997, as revised on July 15, 1997.
2. Procedure. An RP or RC designation may be imposed, modified or removed pursuant to
either a City or area-wide Goal 5 analysis or a Goal 5 analysis of a single property or small number
of individual properties. The- A group of properties shall be processed as a legislative
Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment pursuant to LOC Chapter 50.75.005 (1),
and formerA single property the latter shall be processed as a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan
Map and Zoning Map amendment pursuant to LOC 50.75.005 (2).
"Former"and"later"are thought to be confusing.
3. Addition of Resources.
a. Submission of Application. Within 90 days of receiving evidence that a
previously unmapped resource is likely to meet the criteria for resource designation, the City
Manager shall submit an application for designation of resource to the reviewing authority
pursuant to subsection(2)above.
h. Criteria. The reviewing authority shall adopt a Comprehensive Plan Map and
Zoning Map Amendment to add the resource to the Sensitive Lands Atlas,and designate the RP
District or RC District,as applicable, if the reviewing authority finds•that the proposed resources
are"significant resources,"by meeting the requirements of either subsection (5)Lstream or
wetland) or subsection(6)[tree grove], and if an ESEE analysis shows that the resources are
required to be protected.
Title 3, which implements Goal 5, requires a mechanism to update resource maps. LOC
50.16,025 "Removing an Overlay District Designation" already provides for removal of
resource as a quasi-judicial Comp Plan amendment; and the amendment to LOC
50.16.025 below will also allow "delineate to zero," via.a ministerial.process. Adding
resource is problematic. It requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and there are no
current,procedures or timelines for adopting changes.
_24. Methodologies. The methodologies for determining whether or not the criteria for
designation of a resource has been met shall be the following:
a. Lake Oswego ESEE Process Analysis Methodology to be Utilized. The City shall
determine:
i. Tree Grove: The Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score(HAS);or
ii. Stream Corridors and Wetlands: The Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment
Methodology developed in the City of Lake Oswego Resource Areas Report and ESEE Process
Analysis for evaluation and comparison of inventoried sites pursuant to Statewide Land Use
Planning Goal 5. The HAS is a numerical ranking applied in an ESEE Inventory which represents
the relative wildlife values of a given natural resource site. Six features are evaluated to determine
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 5 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
109
the total Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score: Water; Food; Cover; Disturbance; Linkage; Unique
Features. In addition, the City shall consider the scenic value of the resource pursuant to the
methodology established in the ESEE Process Analysis. See Appendix 50.16-A.
This change, along with the amendment in subsection 6 below, makes it clear that the
HAS score is determined based upon the methodology of the 1994/95 Analysis, not the
1994/95 data. Particularly in cases involving annexations, the 1994/95 Analysis does not
include relevant data;
The Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology reference is to address
subsection(b)below.
b. Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology
The City shall utilize the then current Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology,as
adopted by the Oregon Division of State Lands,to evaluate wetland sites with respect to water
quality and hydrologic control functions.
The code is presently oriented to habitat protection. To comply with Title 3,the City
needs to also evaluate water quality functions when new sites are added to our inventory,
The Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology(OFWAM)is an easy-to-use
wetlands assessment method that is supported by Metro.
45. Applicability of RP Overlay District: The Resource Protection(RP)Overlay District shall
protect environmentally significant stream corridors and wetlands. The following resources may
be placed within the RP District:
a. Stream corridors and wetlands that have a HAS ranking of 50 or more (defined as
"Class I" stream corridors and wetlands).
b. Stream corridors and wetlands that have a HAS ranking of 35-49 or have a "high"
ranking for scenic values(defined as"Class II" stream corridors and wetlands).
c. Wetlands that are significant under OFWAM guidelines,including:
i. Wetlands fed by surface flows, sheet flows or precipitation,that have evidence
of flooding during the growing season,and have 60 percent or greater vegetated cover,and are
over one-half acre in size;or other wetlands that qualify as having"intact water quality function"
under the lOregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology;or
ii. Wetlands in the Flood Management Area,that have evidence of flooding
during the growing season,and are five acres or more in size,and have a restricted outlet or no
outlet; or other wetlands that qualify as having"intact hydrologic control function"under the
Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology: or
iii. Wetlands where at least a portion of the resource is within a horizontal
distance of less than one-fourth mile from a water body which meets the Department of
Environmental Quality definition of"water quality limited water body"in OAR Chapter 340,
Division 41.
This amendment modifies this section to include wetlands that are found to be significant
under OFWAM,plus other very large wetlands. This will not add much area to the
City's current inventory. There are no large,unprotected wetlands in the City now,
although wetlands could be annexed in the future. There are a few small wetlands that
could become significant under OFWAM criteria(e.g.water traps at the Lake Oswego
Country Club,Lake Garden Pond,Kerr Parkway just north of Cirque, SE corner of
Fosberg and Bay Creek, and behind 4431 Lakeview(along railroad tracks));these should
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 6 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
110
be evaluated during the Inventory Update. The new language adopting OFWAM is from
Metro's model code.`
d.All perennial streams.
This''amendment addresses the watershed functions of perennial streams. (OFWAM
evaluates the water quality functions of wetlands but not streams.) Metro assumes all
streams in their inventory have water quality functions. They generally do not map
intermittent streams. We can assume that all perennial streams plus all streams with a
qualifying HAS score(including intermittent streams only if they also have some habitat
value)captures all the streams in Lake Oswego with water quality functions.
56. Applicability of RC Overlay District: The Resource Conservation (RC) Overlay District
shall protect significant tree groves. A tree grove may be placed within an RC District if the tree
grove has:
a. A HAS ranking of at least 35 in the 199f1/95 ESE study;or
We have defined how the HAS score is determined, so the reference to an ESEE report is
not necessary. This change, along with the amendment in subsection 4 above, makes it
clear that the HAS score is determined based upon the methodology of the 1994/95
Analysis,but not limited to the 1994/95 data.
b. A"high"ranking for scenic values in the study;or
c. Is associated with a stream corridor or wetland that has an RP ranking.
Section 50.16.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation
1. In order to remove an overlay District designation the review body shall find that one of
the following criteria are met:
a. As a result of natural occurrences or evolution the resource has been degraded to the
extent that the subject property no longer meets the criteria for designation found in Section
50.16.020(4) or(5) and a re-application of the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the designation is
no longer justified; or
b. There was a mistake in the analysis of quality, quantity or-location in the original
designation of the resource and a re-application of the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the
designation is no longer justi-fiedmeets the criteria; or
c. There was a mistake in the location of the original designation of the resource or the
buffer, such that no portion of the resource or buffer was on the subject property.
2. An overlay district designation shall not be removed as a result of damage caused by the
property owner,another party, or other than natural causes.
3. A removal application pursuant to subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) above shall be processed in
the same manners as a designation application pursuant to LOC 50.16.020.
4. An Overlay District Designation mayeremoved.11ursuant tosubsection_(lj(c.) above by a.
delineation on the subject site in accordance with LOC 50.16.035 and a finding that there is not
now nor was there an.y resource located upon the site at the time of designation.
There are cases where a resource was mapped in error as being on a property. It has been
staff practice to allow the delineation process to update the Sensitive Lands Atlas by
showing that the resource is not on the property.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 7 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
111
Section 50.16.030 Environmental Review.
An applicant for a development subject to this Article pursuant to LOC 50.16.015 shall comply
with:
1. For exempt development under LOC 50.79.005 occurring within an RC or RP District,its
associated buffer, or its associated construction setback area,the applicant shall:
i, Comply with the applicable RP District or RC District Development Standards
(LOC 50.16.060 or 50.16.075);
ii. Comply with the Construction Standards(LOC 50.16.095)to the satisfaction of
the City Manager,
Meet the stepsof avoidance and minimization as stated in LOC 50-16.105(1)and
(2); and
iv. File a miti ation lan that com)lies with the standards of LOC 50.16.110 for the
review and approval of the City Manager.
This subsection is added to eliminate the necessity for minor development review of an
otherwise exempt development(landscaping,normal or emergency repair or maintenance
of public or private buildings, structures, landscaping or utilities; construction of a new
structure or exterior remodeling of an existing structure that does not require a building
permit; street vacations; and temporary structures and uses which are for relief of victims
of disaster or in an emergency)when the project is within an RP or RC District. As long
as the work is done in accordance with the sensitive lands district development
requirements, the general construction standards, practices of avoidance and
minimization are used, and the mitigation plan is implemented, and although the
Sensitive Lands Article is applicable for purposes of avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation,the work need not be reviewed as a ministerial,or perhaps more accurately,as
a minor development. The owner thus bears the burden of complying with the zone
requirements and is subject to citation and remediation in the event of a violation.
2. For development other than under subsection(1)above,the environmental review
requirements in LOC 50.16.035 to 50.16.045 and LOC 50.16.055 to 50.16.060(for RC Zones),
LOC 50.16.065 to 50.16.085 (for RP Zones)or LOC 50.16.090(Special Standards for Oswego
Canal),whichever sections are applicable.
Section 50.16.035 Delineation of Resource
1. Preparation/Criteria. Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, an applicant for a
development subject to environmental review shall first delineate the resource. A delineation is a
more precise, site specific determination of the location of the resource prepared by a qualified
professional. The delineation shall include a map showing the delineated boundary to plus or
minus 2 feet. The delineation map shall also show the buffer area, if required for the particular
resource- Resource boundaries shall be delineated as follows:
a. Tree Groves. The RC District shall be delineated as follows:
i. The boundary of a tree grove shall be measured at the outer edge of a contiguous
tree canopy based on aerial photos and/or visual field observations, but shall not include any tree
canopy that is within an RP District (stream corridor or wetland). (,Area that is a buffer to an RP
District is not itself deemed to be within an RP District.); and.
The code isn't clear'if an RP buffer can account for portion of the 50°la RCPA requirement.
There was an informal council discussion that set precedent for the RP buffer to be used to
achieve the 50%RCPA, This amendment would add text to which allows the RCPA to be
in the RP buffer.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 8 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
112
Appendix 50.16.035(1)(a)
0 ' '' .'
.... 2.,,,:„.. ., : *siiit.:,. ....
g
0,..
k RP ,,,, \ :, :
to,
iti,% - - 4:00'
,,,. , .
. .44. #•• . ,./-44t.,. ...: ., • iii. ...
-4,40...' . * ..- '.. . . 1*..; 40* - iit. . --
. ,, .... . ,.,......
. . „..... ,. it,,,,,:..,*,,.„,...., ...,.. .1,1„,.:14 :1:, .::,
,,..,,, , ../.4„,-,"•• ••*4.,.. ., ,,,: .,,.,t \
, . or,,,,,t ..t\
... , ,,,,,, . .. .
..1.41t 7,,,., Of e 4t,.:, ' .
siii440,' '.'lli''.. iikt.4/de;'''*'.1 ..,...it.'1.°''''''.'111.111*.1101,1114atit.::\:.,.''f, ' .'1''\„..:, ..':i
it-. ,.„..,..-7:,:le",..,47,..*... .. . ::.,:,..: ... \ ....„.
, ik ...**A4 Apt., ,...
. /.„,k-r,t. . 7.10.°11.410&...,4 .:.N----- -'
...„1„.... ..L ,
.. , .,,-;,.. : 1:1/44.
. ,..,,„... ..,,‘ ,_ ...,
` and RP D,, .-,.440.' . „F:' : , It.,,. 41*,
elineated
°� SCre�rr�buffer and construction set ltek tea!Shawn.
R e� ire L in�ion
Example of 50.16.035(a)(i)
1
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 9 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08 0051)
113
b. Wetlands. A wetland boundary shall be measures..to.delineated in accordance with
the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands e
rrr i;hodology appro.mod by the City, except:that:
The City uses the federal assessment process; there is no need for the "equivalent
methodology"option.
i. the methodology and-must include soils testing; and
ii. When a delineated wetland boundary is abutting a steep slope, the buffer shall be
applied from the top of the slope rather than from the delineated boundary. The top of slope shall
be determined according to the same criteria as the top of bank, pursuant to Appendix
50.16.035(1)(b).
Title 3 requires larger buffers for wetlands adjacent steep slopes, similar to the larger
buffers the City already provides to streams in steep ravines. Overland flows feed these
water features,so adjacent land uses impact water quality more. Steepness also makes
them more prone to erosion.
c. Stream Corridors. A stream corridor boundary shall be measured or delineated based
on topographic maps, hydrology maps, and/or field observations, pursuant to Appendix 50.16-B,
"Methods for Establishing Stream Corridor Boundaries".
2. Review of Delineation. The City Ma nagerreviewing authority shall compare the
applicants delineation maps with the 1994/1995 ESEE Study and the SL Atlas, and shall inspect
staked, delineated resource boundaries. The reviewing authority City-Mxanager...shall approve the
delineation if he or she fiords that the delineated boundary more accurately reflects the locations of
the—RP and/or RC resources than the boundary as shown in the SL Atlas. If the C- y
Mar agerreviewi g authority finds that the evidence is contradictory or does not support the
proposed delineations, he or she :;frail deny the application shall be denied. In the alternative, the
City-Manager—may-continue4-he-review of the application may be continued for additional
information if:
The change in reviewing authority is consistent with the change from ministerial to minor
development,in LOC 50.79.020.
a. The applicant agrees to conduct a new delineation by an expert selected by the City
Manager at the applicant's expense;and
b. The applicant waives the applicable statutory deadline for completing a local decision
on the application for the period of time necessary to conduct the new delineation.
3. Adjustment of Overlay District Boundaries to Reflect Approved Delineation. An
approved delineated boundary shall replace the boundary in the Sensitive Lands Atlas for the
purposes of review of the development proposal for compliance with this Article. If and when the
proposed development receives final approval, including resolution of any appeals, the boundary
of the RP or RC district as shown in the SL Atlas and SL Map (if necessary), shall be modified to
be consistent with the delineated boundary,and the SL Atlas and SI:., Map shall show the required.
buffer outward from the delineated boundary.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 10 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
114
The delineated resource is now shown on the SL Atlas and Zoning maps without the
buffer. However,development is regulated within the buffer. The buffer should be shown
on the map to help landowners assess what areas are encumbered.
4. Re Delineation not Required;Exceptions. An applicant for a development subject to this
Article shall not be required to delineate the resource pursuant to this section if
a. iThe resource has been previously delineated pursuant to an earlier development
application subject to this Article. Exception: The City Manager may require a new delineation if:
al. The applicant desires to demonstrate that the previously delineated boundary is no
longer accurate;
b 2. There is evidence of a substantial change in circumstances on the property that has
affected the location of the resource as previously delineated; or
c3. The City Council has adopted new delineation standards or requirements since the
previous delineations; of
b. The proposed development consists solely of landscaping and/or- tree removal or
qualifies as a resource enhancement project, and complies with LOC 50.16.075(2)(a)(i)
Landsca in 50.16.075 2 ii Tree Removal or either LOC 50.16.060 3 or
50.16.075(2)(a)(vi) [Resource Enhancement Projects l._
This amendment eliminates the delineation requirement for resource enhancement projects
and tree removal and landscaping compatible with resource protection. This is intended to
simplify the review process for landowners who are providing a public benefit through
resource enhancement or are making small landscaping changes with no appreciable
environmental impact.
5. Delineation in the Absence of a Development Application. An applicant may apply to
delineate a resource in absence of an application for a specific development. r a ahi. „ a
rirr....tpph -itiairr....to lelmeate-.a...resource....shall.....be_priseesse4....as-a ministerial-developmen -ptirsaant....to
WC Article 50.80.
Note: under LOC 50.79.020, staff proposed reclassifying delineation of resource
boundaries as a minor development, Staff practice has :been to consider resource
delineation a ministerial review even when coupled with partition / lot line adjustment,
although we have not addressed whether that constitutes 'a "specific development."
Whether the classification of resource delineation is "ministerial" or "minor"
development really depends on whether the land use standards do or do not require
interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment`, In other words, if the
determination is ministerial if "specific development" is not proposed, then the
determination would still qualify as ministerial if specific development is proposed.; (The
specific development would be separately reviewed.) BY practice, where a decision has
both a ministerial review and a minor development review, a single staff report is issued,
identifying that there are two different levels of review for the multiple issues on review.
Appendix 50.16.035(1)(h) "Methods for Establishing Stream Corridor Boundaries"
Appendix 50.16.035(1)(b),..."Methods.._for Establishin 'Stream Corridor Boundaries" is hereby
amended its entirety as set forth on Figures 1-bb,
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 11 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
115
This clarifies the boundaries of the stream corridor by use of better graphics It
also uses the term"stream corridor boundary"rather than"top of bank"to
eliminate the confusion when the minimum 10'width on either side of centerline
of the stream was beyond the topographic break. These amendments conform to
existing staff interpretation and practice.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 12 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
116
,' + Stream C4rs4dar BauartxY At beyaarxl+deo or ckaaeeal
. � r};7 Stream Corridor ' r�? ,--,.,1
Construction a r' e / Construction
Setback 1ft' 5,30'Buffer*- 10 1t1 30'Buffer 'Si Setback 10'
Comer,-1 f 0' ,,r• I Ntribaita I;$t i
20' Wide Stream Corridor
No wetlands,culverts,or slopes 9reater than 25%,
30'buffer illustrated here;class ll streams re a 25'buffer.
Figure 1
t.� r
i .4 fir 11
* 4 e "
6' '
d g '.j Stream Corridor ,
Construction ,,�J r Construction
Setback 11?' 30'Buffer i 343'Buffer Setback 10'
A �Igvr... . -fir _»Jo, 4- q'ill ..a!
Stream
GzTr#dor EAxxerrdarY ......, m.,.P
at tap:at Che➢hrt.9
Stream Corridor > 20' Wide
No wetlands,culverts,or slopes greater than 25%.
30'buffer illustrated here; class II streams receive 25'buffer.
Figure 2
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 13 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
117
Stream Corridor
4 ►
i 10'
i
Construction ,j • Sar.ar. 'h Construction
Setback 10' 30"Suffer Wetland 1i;�,O� 30' - r Setback 10'
} kfa v ,,
yr
i�
Z. it fe n
1
Strea s with Associated etlands
Stream corridor boundary remains at least 10'from the stream centerline
on both sides, Wetland boundaries are delineated according to the
1 aT Corps of Engineers Manual,
Figure 3
Revise to
Construction) f IN."E V .--„a Construction
Setback 10' -, 30'Buffer , , 30'Buffer j Setback 10'
r 3
y
Stream Corridork .a
Flat 1.a nd s t S i fM`� 4 o- Flat Land "-.A
..„ .,_ ,
Streams with Steep Slopes or Ravines
..,. 4
i Steep slopes are equal to or greater
than 25%measured as rise i run.
4
Figure 4
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 14 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
118
Stream Corridor
Construction _ of I 'I" Construction
Setback 10' 30'Buffer'" 30'Buffer siletbe 10'
I cOr
` �n�
Aw
t
Flat Land ....ilk + , Inactive slide may form
U i eitmtin a° I edge el adearti_.arrl:eksr.
a
a !
l
LT
fleadtada ias# ltc ri!r aaot
Streams ith Topographic Var ions
Illegal fill is not treated as stream corridor boundary;
please refer to the first page of this appendix.
Figure 5
Buffer extends over existing structures __._. t _
30'Buffer m -
l
�„
30'Buffer
t' € .
i . L.. ca
f
E + Buffer arcs around culvert opining.
Buffers on Culverts
Figure 6a
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 15 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
119
e..�..�.. ..�.. .... a
l /h
, '~noacater culvert *
_ revue rat w 'a p� '4 #11 'e' f ' \ti\,.fir :=It i IrA*£ �* l CW.
,
f e { 3S' �raa3c 6>a st�pa '" ✓ s
Top of Bank of Culvert.Ravine or Steep Slope
Figure 6b
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 16 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
120
Section 50.16.055 RC District Protection Areas
1. The applicant for a major or minor development permit on a property containing an RC
District shall designate a minimum of 50% of the RC District after delineation as the "RC
Protection Area". The applicant for a development that does not otherwise require a major or
minor development permit may designate a Protection Area as part of the application, but such
application shall be processed as a minor development.
2. Except as otherwise provided in LOC 50.16.060, no development shall be permitted
within the Protection Area. The area outside of the Protection Area may be fully developed
pursuant to applicable regulations,
3. Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the location of the Protection Area
shall be based upon the following criteria:
a. The Protection Area shall link to other RP or RC lands on the development site and on
abutting properties,if such lands are present;
b. The trees having DBH width greater than the median DBH within an RC District shall
be included in the Protection Area;
c. The location of the Protection Area shall be designed to protect development from
blow-down hazards;
d. The Protection Area shall protect steep slopes and resources close to water areas from
potential erosion and water quality impacts;
e. The Protection Area shall protect wildlife habitat and travel corridors;
f. The Protection Area shall be designed to protect a contiguous canopy and a clustered
configuration that does not fragment lands within an RC District;
g. The Protection Area shall consist of maintain...an-ecologically_viable plant and wildlife
c-onulltycomnnunities;
The word "maintain" is changed because it seems to imply ongoing maintenance
responsibilities. The goal is that the RCPA consist of a plant and wildlife community.
"Ecologically"is removed because that is addressed within"viable",e.g.,sustainable:
h. The Protection Area shall maintain the scenic qualities of the site.
4. It is recognized that all of the criteria listed in subsection (3) of this section may not be
applicable to every site. In some cases,the criteria may conflict on a given site. In such cases,the
reviewing authority shall balance the applicable criteria in order to protect the most
environmentally significant portion of the RC District.
5. Once a Protection Area has been identified and protected pursuant to LOC Article 50.16
and approval becomes final, no future reduction in the RC Protection Area shall be permitted,
unless the property owner files for a modification to the original permit and establishes a new
Protection Area in compliance with subsection (3) of this section that is at least as large as the
previously designated protection area, or demonstrates that the Protection Area as originally
designated has degraded through natural causes pursuant to LOC 50.16.020.
6. The City Manager shall note the establishment of a Protection Area in the SL Atlas, along
with a reference to the application in which the Protection Area was created.
7. In order to put future property owners and occupants on notice,the applicant shall:
a. - Execute a covenant running with the land that references the Protection Area
and the City of Lake Oswego Depai tment of Planning application file in which the Protection Area
was established.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 17 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
121
Section 50.16.060 RC District Development Standards
1. Except as provided in subsection g. of this section, a criterion applicable to the RC
Protection Area shall apply to the entire RC District if no Protection Area has been established
pursuant to LOC 50.16.055.
2. In addition to compliance with any other applicable regulations, the following
development uses and activities on properties containing an RC District are permitted within the
RC District or its buffer, subject to the standards set forth in this subsection_3 below:
Planning Commission work session suggestion to change"section"to"subsection",as
that is the correct terminology,and referencing subsection 3 is also for clarity.
a. Streets,driveways, lake trams,and public transportation facilities,
b. New Structures, Accessory Structures,Decks.,Parking Areas Active tJse Recreational
FacilitiesNew striactu.: s,
c. A,ec sory.st ru tuTes;.Additions to Existing Structures and to Non-conforming
Structures
d. s Temporary construction activities
e. Parkinm;areas,
g..........Fences,
It El Passive use recreational facilities,
ig. Utilities,
h. :qk ur-ce Resource enhancement projects,
kuldseaoia•;Lanc$scaping,new and existing,and
ij. IT-ea-Tree removal,
k. Limited Hazardous Material Storage.
Subsection references re-titled, to correspond to the specific development standards in
subsection(3)below.
3. Development Standards. If the proposed types of development are permitted within the
RC District or its buffer,the development activity,use or activity shall comply with the following
standards, and the construction standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095:
a. Streets,Driveways,Lake Trams, and Public Transportation Facilities.
The existing text misleadingly suggests that streets, driveways, and public transportation
facilities can only be located in an RC Protection Area if they are to provide access to
buildable areas of the property on which the street, driveway, or public transportation
facilities are located. In the cases of streets (whether public or private), they do not
actually provide access to the property on which they are located because the street serves
as access to adjacent parcels; to the extent they provide access to buildable parcels, they
should be permitted.
Major transportation facilities, i.e.,regional trails, bus stops,transit centers, light rail, and
similar facilities, are located based upon their function to the street upon which they are
located or for the area/regional transportation system. This section was not intended to
restrict the ability to construct public streets and locate public transportations facilities,but
if they are located'within'an RC Protection Area, there should be no other reasonable
alternative consistent with the public transportation.needs.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 18 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
122
In any case, when a street, driveway, or public transportation facility is located within an
RC Protection Area, its impact will be both minimized and,mitigated by either additional
RC Protection Area to compensate for the lost area or the remaining RCPA will be
enhanced.
, asu4dah1
,
practicable method of access
(i) Driveways shall be set back at least 5 feet from, and shall not be placed through an
RC Protection Arca unless there is no other practicable method of access to the buildable areas of
property served by the driveway.
This amendment is essentially a reiteration of the existing text from subsection (b) - that
the driveway is to provide access to the buildable area of the property, In some cases,
however,a driveway may be on another parcel(shared driveway,flag lot),so the driveway
doesn't actually serve to provide access on the same parcel,as the driveway but rather to
other adjacent or nearby property. Thus the scope of the "buildable property" has been
expanded to permit drivevvays if they are the only practical means of access to buildable
areas on property served by the driveway, whether that be on the property where the
driveway is located or through other property.
This amendment also includes the existing 5 foot buffer for the driveway, brought over
from subsection(b).
(ii) Public or private streets, trams to access Oswego Lake, and public transportation
facilities shall be set back at least 5 feet from, and shall not be placed in or through an RCPA
unless:
This amendment also adds a 5 foot buffer along the public streets,private streets,regional
trails, and for the public transportation facilities, as is the case for driveways for in
subsection(b), for the same reason -protection of tree roots. If it is appropriate to protect
tree roots from driveway construction, then so too it is appropriate to protect tree roots
from public and private streets,regional trails,and public transportation facilities.
A. for public or private streets,there is no other practical method of providing for
access to buildable parcels.
This restates the previous requirement.
B. for public transportation facilities, there is no other suitable location nearby
for siting the public transportation facilities which would provide equal or greater public use of the
public transportation facilities.
Public transportation facilities, 1111S StOpS,transit centers, light rail, do not serve as access
to buildable parcels or as a connection themselves to other specific streets,but rather either
enhance the street system or are a part of the larger area's transportation system(bus,light
rail). Public transportation facilities should be permitted in an RC Protection Area and the
five-foot setback when there is no equivalent location for the siting of the facilities outside
the RC Protection Area, as measured by the degree of utility for public use. When public
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 19 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
1 23
need is significantly better served by placing the facility in an RC Protection Area or five-
foot setback, the damage to the RC Protection Area and setback area is mitigated through
either the expansion of the RC Protection Area to make up for the,lost area, or by
enhancing the quality of the remaining RC Protection Area.
C. for trams to access Oswego Lake, there is no other practical method of
providing for access to Oswego Lake;
This amendment would allow a tram to go through an RC Protection Area for access to
Oswego Lake or Willamette River, when there,is no other practical means of access, i.e.,
steep lot.
D. for regional trails, (designated as a regional trail on the City's Trails and
Pathway Master Plan),they may be located within an RCPA provided the trail width shall
be no greater than 12 feet wide (as determined by the standards in the City's Trails and
Pathway Master Plan),
A regional trail (although usually paved), is desired to be sited within an RCPA
because of the pedestrian experience and reduction of conflict between trail users and
vehicles/development if required to be sited outside of an RCPA.
If allowed within the Protection Area and five-foot setback pursuant to this
criterion,the applicant shall comply with the following requirements:
This restates that the five-foot setback is applied to streets and private streets, not just
driveways.
A. i Roa-4-m,ayrStreets, private streets, driveways and bridges shall be the
minimum width necessary+€)-protect resources ‘vithiu the Protection Ara while also allowing for
safe passage of vehicles and/or pedestrians.
Consistent usage of term"street".
Added "private streets", to make it clear that private driveways are included. Driveway
technically already includes private streets
The amount of disturbance for driveways ° shall be
minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for
adjacent lots;
This repeats an existing requirement for shared driveways. The area of applicability -
Protection Area and setback--is addressed at the beginning of this section.
iiC. . applicable, The—the applicant shall plan for future extension of
shared access, access easements, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to
avoid subsequent encroachments into the Protection Area and five-foot setback area;
This subcriterion would be applicable to development of private streets and driveways,but
not public streets and public transportation facilities.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 20 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
124
iD. The applicant shall mitigate for loss of Protection Area by increasing the
size of the protection area, where feasible, to compensate for the area of the RC Protection Area.
used for the new public or private street, driveway, or public transportation facility. or by
complying with the mitigation requirements in LOC Sections 50.16.100 to 50.16.110.
PC Work Session Comment: Addition of the word"additional" or"new" in reference to
public or private street or driveway, to clarify that the driveway was added to the RCPA
after it was designated.
This amendment makes it,clear that the term `increasing" the goal is not to require a
greater percentage of the parcel to be placed in an RC Protection Area(overcompensating
for the area of the RC Protection Area used),but rather to add additional area within in RC
Protection Area equal to the RC Protection Area used for the street,'driveway, or public
transportation facility.
b. New Structures,Accessory Structures,Decks,Parking Areas,Active Use Recreational
Facilities. and Driveways. New structures,parking areas, and active use recreational facilities,and
driveway: shall be set back at least 5 feet from the Protection Area boundary in order to protect
tree roots. Accessory structures, decks, and similar structures meeting the criteria of LOC
50.14.005 (5)(a-c) and LOC 50.22.045 (2) are permitted within the 5 foot setback area so long as
they are placed no closer than 3 feet from the Protection Area boundary.
"Driveway"is also addressed in subsection(a)above. It is removed from this section, and
retained in subsection (a) because (1) at times it is necessary for driveways to be placed
within Protection Areas, and(2) the driveway,which includes both driveways and private
streets,should be treated akin to private streets and public streets,in subsection(a),
c. Additions to Existing Structures and to Non-conforming Structures — Additions to
existin:s structures or to non-conformin structures are ermined rovided the addition does not
expand the lot coverage in the resource area.
This amendment allows the "up but not out" construction of an addition to an existing
structure, consistent with the Debar Formal Interpretation. Although that interpretation
was focused on "land development", the concept of allowing higher construction is
believed appropriate,as a means to avoid teardowns and reconstruction on the site.
PC Work Session Comment: Although the Commission was in agreement on the concept
of this subsection(c),some desire to clarify that permission to build up does not confer
privilege to disregard the rest of the Code. Staff notes this is true for the entire subsection
(3)--note the text in subsection(2)above:
2. In addition to compliance with any other applicable regulations, the
following development uses and activities on properties containing an RC District are
permitted within the RC District or its buffer, subject to the standards set forth in this
section:
.................
........... .........
d. Temporary Construction Activities. A temporary, construction zone, not greater than
10 feet wide1isallowed around the footprint of any structure when r►ecessa for tools, scaffolds,
etc. related to the construction,_maintenance, or repair of the structure. No storage of materials or
supplies may occur within this zone.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 21 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
125
ee. Fences. Fences shall not be placed in a Protection Area unless they are constructed
the bottom of the fence(except for posts)is not less than 12" above ground and the top of the fence
is not taller than 4 feet tall, or of another design approved by the City Manger, to allow wildlife
passage.
There are no clear standards for determining if a fence is "wildlife friendly."
Recommend that"wildlife friendly"be defined in the code to read: 12" above ground,
no taller than 4 feet tall, and/or are designed according to a design approved by the
City Manager.
df. Passive Use Recreational Facilities in Protection Area. Passive use recreational
facilities, including soft surface trails and pedestrian bridges, may be located within the RC
Protection Area. If construction of such facilities disturbs any adjacent land within an RC
Protection Area, the disturbed area shall be restored and revegetated with plants identified on the
RcitoratiotiuPlants,List asaopi..pri at for resource landsca in .
There are references to a native plant list, a nuisance plant list,and a restoration plant list.
Staff recommends that one comprehensive list be developed.
eg. Utilities. Public or private utilities shall not be placed in or through the RC Protection
Area unless tunneling under a resource where tree roots cart be avoided and the functions and
values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. If allowed to
be located within an RC Protection Area, the applicant shall restore and revegetate the disturbed
area with plants identified on the restoration Plants List and mitigation shall be required pursuant
to LOC Sections 50.16.100 to 50.16.110. When applying Step 1 (avoidance) of the mitigation
process:
With the advance of trenchless technology utility lines can go through(under) a resource
with less disturbance than going the long way around with conventional open trench
methods, which often require tree cutting for haul roads and equipment maneuvering.
This amendment would allow utilities to be located within the RCPA if the manner of
installation would result in no adverse impact on the trees and their roots. This uses the
same exception is found for the RP District Development Standard regarding utilities.
There are references to a native plant list, a nuisance plant list,and a restoration plant list.
Staff recommends that one comprehensive list be developed.
. Sanitary sewer, water,power, gas,telecommunications, cable and storm drain
lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed around significant resources, rather
than through a resource wherever possible;
2. Drainage patterns shall not be altered in the resource area, or if altered, shall be
designed and maintained so as not to adversely impact the functions and values of the resource.
The language of "utilities" is currently unclear if public surface water is considered
utilities. It is for purposes of Utilities in LOC 50.54. Adding this subsection clarifies that
the public surface water is considered a"utility"and establishes the standard for managing
surface water runoff. In some cases the water is critical for recharging the groundwater or
maintaining stream flows during low water periods. This amendment protects the
resource's source of water.
resoiffe-e-shall be-pet-naitted whefe-titee-roots ettn-be two:Wed--
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 22 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
126
This is now addressed in (g) above, thus eliminating the threshold requirement that
tunneling be avoided.
th. Resource Enhancement Projects. Resource enhancement projects shall remove only
invasive vegetation, and shall plant only vegetation within the RC District or Protection Area, if
one has been established, listed on the Restoration Plants List. Any pathways or structures
proposed as part of a resource enhancement project shall retain existing trees.
gi. Landscaping.
i. Plants. Plants used for landscaping within a Protection Area shall:
A. Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions;
B. Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource;
C. Not be dependant on long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and
sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants is not considered long
term irrigation); and
D. Provide food or cover for wildlife.
ii. The City shall maintain a Restoration Plant List on file in the Planning Del artnt,m
Division listing species that comply with the criteria in subsection (3)(g)(i) of this section. If a
plant is listed in the applicable section of Off:the Restoration-Plant listList for resource landscaping,
it shall be presumed to comply with subsection(3)(g)(i)of this section. The Rcstorat*of Plant List
is not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials,but shall be used as a
guideline and may be updated by the City Manager from time to time as new plants in compliance
with subsection (3)(g)(i) of this section are discovered or become available. An applicant may
utilize a plant not on the sto-ton Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection
3 (g)(i)of this section.
iii. Removal of vegetation identified on the Restoration-Plant List as appropriate for
resource landscaping is not permitted from a protection area.
iv. No herbicides or pesticides shall be used except for control of invasive plants as
identified on the Invasive Plants List maintained-in the Naming g Department.
v. New landscaping shall not include any invasive plants on the v`s 1 y asive
Plants listList.
vi. Existing Landscaping: Non-conforming formal landscaped area including
ornamental gardens and lawns located within a Protection Area and in existence at the time of the
adoption of these standards, may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant to LOC
50.70.005. However, a non-conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to LOC
50.70.025.
There are references to a native plant list, a nuisance plant list,and a restoration plant list.
Staff recommends that one comprehensive list be developed.
hj.. Tree Removal. Tree removal on property within the RC District shall be subject to the
following criteria:
i. Tree removal in a RC district that has not established a RC Protection Area shall
be subject to a Dead Tree Removal Permit (LOC 55.02.042 (3)) or Hazard Tree Removal Permit
(LOC 55.02.042 (4)). Tree removal pursuant to LOC 55.02.080 is prohibited in an RC District
prior to designation of the Protection Area.
ii. Tree removal within a designated RC Protection Area shall be subject to a Dead
Tree Removal Permit(LOC 55.02.042 (3)) or Hazard Tree Removal Permit(LOC 55.02.042 (4)).
Tree removal for development permitted pursuant to this section, excepting subsection (g) and this
subsection, within a Protection Area is permitted pursuant to LOC 55.02.080.
iii. Tree removal outside of the Protection Area shall comply with LOC Chapter 55.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 23 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
127
iv. These limitations are not intended to prohibit removal of trees in an emergency
pursuant to LOC 55.02.042(5).
k Limited I-lazardous Materials Storage. Uncontained hazardous material, as defined
by the Department of Environment Quality,or development providing for the storage or
processing of materials that are flammable,explosive,toxic, or that could be injurious to human,
animal, or plant life are prohibited in the Resource Conservation District.
EXCEPTION:
A. Materials that are tyrpically used for household purposes and in quantities
which are normal for household use.
B, Materials that are stored in a boathouse and are typically used for
recreational boat operation and maintenance.
Title 3 requires that hazardous materials not be stored in sensitive lands. This has not
been a particular problem in Lake Oswego.
Note: the RC District includes the RCPA because once the RCPA is determined, it
becomes the new RC District boundary.
Section 50.16.065 Resource P u_ n-Protection (RP)District Environmental Review
Standards; Applicability and Purpose.
Corrects name of overlay district to Resource Protection. See LOC 50.16.005.
In addition to compliance with LOC 50.16.030 to 50.16.045, applicants for development
that is subject to environmental review on property containing an RP District shall comply with the
standards contained in LOC 50.16.O65 070 to 50.16.085, in order to:
1. Prohibit new development within an RP District following delineation of the resource or
resources, except as provided in this section. In the event that development is allowed within an
RP District, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of or damage to the RP resource pursuant to
LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110;
2. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the total
land area and the functions and values of resources designated as RP;
3. Allow for development opportunities for at least one single family home in residential
zones where an RP District occupies most or all of an individual property, pursuant to applicable
mitigation criteria of LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110.
This section is a purpose section;it does not contain any standards itself
Section 50.16.070 RP District Buffer and Structure/Improvement Construction Setback
Requirements
1. Buffer areas shall be provided around delineated RP resources.
a. The purpose of the buffer area is to ensure that the resource is protected for the
shelter, food, travel, and nesting needs of wildlife and to provide continuity of the resource for
aesthetic,surface water quality, slope protection,and flood protection functions and values,
b. The buffer area shall be shown on the delineation map prepared pursuant to LOC
50-16.035.
2. The following buffer areas,measured outward from the edge of a delineated RP resource,
shall be provided:
a. Class I Wetlands and Class II Wetlands abutting Class I Stream Corridors-30 feet
b. Other Class II Wetlands-25 feet
c. Class I Stream Corridors-30 feet
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 24 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
128
d. Class II Stream Corridors-25 feet
3. Exceptions/Modifications to Buffer Requirements:, The review authority may allow
portions of the required buffer to be reduced when the applicant shows that:
a. The proposed development complies with LOC 50.16.105; and
b. The reduction in buffer width is not solely for the impose of maximizing development
of the site;and
c. Development abuts a Class I or II Resource:
a-. Development abutting a Class I Resource. The review authority may
allow portions of the required buffer abutting a Class I resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15
feet if:
iA. A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the
functions and values of the resource as a whole;and
i4B.The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 30 foot average buffer width.
jib. Development abutting a Class II Resource. The review authority may allow
portions of the required buffer abutting a Class II resource to be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet
if:
iA. A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the
functions and values of the resource as a whole; and
413.The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 25 foot average buffer width.
ed. The review authority may permit a buffer width that is less than the average
minimums required in subsections (3) (ai) or (3)C0(hii) of this section when a qualified
professional shows that such an adjustment will not damage the system as a whole, and one of the
following conditions exist:
il. The presence of an existing topographic feature or human-made development
physically precludes establishment of the minimum buffer width required; or
112. The size or configuration of the subject parcel is insufficient to provide the
minimum buffer width required.
1. The re‘iew authorit -sha--11 not permit a reduction in huffierhi ± i thsokly for the-p ,-rpos,...!of
maximizing Ltzvelopmen, f
1. The requirement imposed in each of the 3 exceptions—"not reduce the
functions and values of the resource"or"not damage the system as a whole"has
been addressed in a more understandable method by requiring the development
show compliance with the"avoid and minimize"requirements of LOC
50.16.105.
2. The amendments to this section refounat the criteria for reductions in the
buffer,so that the requirement that the reduction not be done for the purpose of
maximizing development is moved up into the reduction subsection.
3. The amendments to this section reformat the subsections,for readability.
4. Additional construction setbacks are required from the RP District buffer by LOC
50.16.075 for the following;
A. New structures,parking areas,active use recreation facilities,streets and
driveways- 10 feet.
B. Accessory structures,decks,and similar outdoor facilities meeting the criteria of
LOC 50.14.005 (5)(a)- c)and LOC 50.22.045 (2)-3 feet.
The requirement for an RP to have an additional 10 ft construction setback is located
in another section of the code; this modification is intended to consolidate all the
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 25 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
129
setback requirements in one section and make the code easier to read and understand.
The standard for the construction setback is not changed.
Section 50.16.075 RP District Development Standards
1. In addition to compliance with any other applicable regulations, and subject to the
requirement for compliance with subsection(3)below,the following development,use or activity
on properties containing an RP District are permitted within the RP District or its buffer, subject
to the standards set forth in subsection(2)below:
a. Landscaping,new and existing„
b. Tree removal,
c. Utilities
The listing of"utilities" as one of the development activities that could occur, subject
to the development standards listed below,was inadvertently omitted. See subsection
2(a)(iii)below.
ed. Streets,driveways, and public transportation facilities,
de. Resource enhancement projects [LOC 50.16.075 (2)(a)(vi)],
ef. New-ARM uro Structures,
'g. Parking areas,
gh. Active use recreation facilities,
hi. Hard surfaced pathways, and
i. .........Streets....and-driveway s.
j. Limited Hazardous Materials Storage.
k. Signs and Kiosks along streets,trails,parks, and minor or major public facilities
Duplicated listing in.Subsection (c) above. New standards are proposed for hazardous
materials,and signs and kiosks.
2. Except as provided in LOC 50.16.085, all development listed in subsection (1) above is
subject to environmental review and shall comply with the following standards:
a. Specific Development Standards.
i. Landscaping. The delineated RP Resource and buffer zone shall maintain the
natural function and character of resource area,which provides food and shelter for native wildlife.
Landscaping within these areas shall therefore comply with the following criteria:
A. Plants: Plants used for landscaping within a delineated resource and buffer
area shall:
(1) Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions;
(2) Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource;
(3) Not be dependant on long-term irrigation,which can increase erosion and
sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants
is not considered long term irrigation); and
(4) Provide food or cover for wildlife.
B. The City shall maintain a Resteratiea---_Plant List on....file..th-he-Planning
. . enlisting species that comply with the criteria in subsection (2)(a)(i)(A) of this section.
If a plant is listed on the _.„ ' -* -Plant bdtList as appropriate for resource landscaping, it shall
be presumed to comply with subsection (2)(a)(i)(A) of this section. The Res i€n-Plant List is
not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials, but shall be used as a
guideline and may be updated by the City Manager from time to time as new plants in compliance
with subsection(2)(a)(i)(A) of this section are discovered or become available. An applicant may
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 26 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
130
utilize a plant not on the ,~ Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection
(2)(a)(i)(A)of this section.
C. Removal of vegetation identified on the Restoration-Plant List as appropriate
for resource landscaping is not permitted from an RP District delineated-resource or buffer areas
xc.ent as otherwise allowed in this section.
There are several references to different plant lists. There is confusion between the native
plant list,nuisance plant list, and restoration plant list. Staff recommend that one list be
developed that clarifies the different portions of the plant list. The new list should be
updated with current invasive and nuisance plants and should outlaw horticultural variant
use.
Plant removal should not occur in non-delineated RP Districts. Removal of trees or as
otherwise allowed in this Section.075 is authorized, so that needs to be permitted here.
D. No herbicides or pesticides shall be used within the delineated resource or
buffer area except for control of invasive plants as identified on the liwisive Plants List
t aifaais e€1 in the Plannitta Department.
E. New landscaping within the delineated resource or and buffer area shall not
include any invasive plants on the City Irvi Plants 1ist:[.,i.st.
There are several references to different plant lists. There is confusion between the native
plant list,nuisance plant list, and restoration plant list. Staff recommend that one list be
developed that clarifies the different portions of the plant Iist. The new list should be
updated with current invasive and nuisance plants and should outlaw horticultural variant
user
F. Existing Landscaping: Non-conforming formal landscaped areas including
ornamental gardens and lawns located within a delineated resource or buffer area and in existence
at the time of the adoption of these standards,may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant
to LOC 50.70.005. However, a non-conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to
LOC 50.70.025.
ii. Tree Removal. Tree removal within an RP District or RP District buffer pursuant
to LOC 50.16.070 shall be subject to the following criteria:
1. re uir -a-Chess-Tync I and Type II tree removal permits, in accordance with
LOC 55,02,042.for development purposes, for those limited development activities allowed and
approved pursuant to this section;
2. A Tvpe II tree removal permit, in accordance with I,OC 55.02.042 for
landscaping purposes,in conjunction and consistent with a Resource Enhancement project;
d � rtt says
z-r-' �:LTttir➢SST„), z'ti.c{:° t: that a tr;& reII3C)v�ll-tau-"'�s�azxrRz-�f,-,..,K. �- _,_.�;,�-.,irr) (3) shal only 17;- permitted
fr...t4ae l �itel devellnn aoti tie all � �° �1� 1 aijlirced lnu sar�t ter this Heir.__...__
3 Hazard Tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(4), except
any portion of the tree that is not likely be hazardous to persons or property shall be retained for
wildlife habitat and natural resources.
4. Emergency tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(5).
5. Verification permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(61
These changes clean up incorrect references and unclear language:
Ordinance 2527-Attachment B 27 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
131
Reference to "Class" II tree permits are changed to conform to the designation of tree
permits as a "Type" I or II tree permit. See 55,02,042. Type I tree removal permit is
added,so long as the purpose is for development consistent witfi this Section.075.
The stricken reference in(now) subsection 2 to Emergency Tree Removal permit as LOC
55.02.042(2) is incorrect. The actual reference for Emergency Tree Removal permits is
subsection(5). That is now listed in this section as subsection(5).
Verification permits are issued, following a Type II permit,when necessary for utility or
in a development site. It should be listed, since a Type II removal is allowed.
There is no need for removal of Dead Trees, except under the hazardous tree removal
section. Where possible,trees should be modified to be safe and still provide some habitat
benefit.
The area of application of this section is expanded to include the RP Resource buffer
created by LOC 50.16.070. In other development standards, the RP resource buffer
receives,similar protection as the RP District. This amendment extends this requirement
to include the RP District buffer,for consistency with the other development standards.
iii. Utilities.
A, Placement/New Construction: Public or private utilities shall not be placed
within an RP district or buffer unless tunneling under a resource will not cause any adverse effect
upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained or there is no
other practicable alternative. If a public or private utility is allowed within an RP District or RP
District buffer pursuant to LOC 50,16.070,mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC 50.16.100
to 50.16.110. When applying the mitigation process to this section:
(1)A. Step #1 Avoidance. Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, cable,
telecommunications, and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed
around significant resources, rather than through a resource wherever possible, except that
tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tunneling will not cause any adverse effect
upon the resource or tree roots,can be avoided and the functions and values of a resource will be
maintained.
This amendment allows tunneling in the resource if there is no adverse effect. Curiently,
the "no other practical alternative"must be satisfied before the avoidance/minimization
test is applied.
4(2). Step #2 Minimization. Sanitary sewer, water, storm drain line and
other subsurface crossings shall be made within 30 degrees of perpendicular to the stream where
practical or feasible.
iv. Streets,Driveways,Lake Trams, and Public Transportation Facilities.
See commentary regarding Section 50.16.060(3)IRC District Development
Standards] above. The changes to this subsection are for the same reasons as the
development of streets, driveways, and public transportation facilities within an RC
District,
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 28 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
132
A. r pPrivate streets,drive vays€r public transportation bona#<ciiitics shall not
be placed through an RP Resource or buffer area °~ unless
there is no other practicable method of access to buildable parcels.
B. Driveways shall not be placed through an RP Resource or buffer area unless
there is no other practicable method of access to the buildable areas of property served by the
driveway. The amount of disturbance for driveways in the Protection Area shall be minimized
through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots;
See commentary regarding Section 50.16,060(3)[RC District Development Standards]
above. The changes to this subsection are for the same reasons as the development of
streets,driveways,and public transportation facilities within an RC Protection Area.
C. Trams to access Oswego Lake shall not be placed through an RP Resource or
buffer area unless there is no other practicable method of access to Oswego Lake;
This amendment would allow a tram to go through an RP District or buffer for access
to Oswego Lake,when there is no other practical means of access,i.e.,steep lot.
D. 4.27 Public streets and public transportation facilities shall not be placed in oz-
through an RP District or its buffer unless:
(I). For public streets, there is no other practical method of providing for
access to buildable parcels.
See commentary regarding Section 50.16.060(3)[RC District Development
Standards] above. The changes to this subsection are for the same reasons as the
development of streets, driveways, and public transportation facilities within an RC
Protection Area.
(2). For public transportation facilities (other than regional trails), there is no
other suitable location nearby for siting the public transportation facilities which would provide
equal or greater public use of the public transportation facilities.
See commentary regarding Section 50.16.060(3)[Re District Development
Standards] above. The changes to this subsection are for the same reasons as the
development of streets, driveways, and public transportation facilities within an RC
Protection Area:
(3) For regional trails, (designated as a regional trail on the City"s Trails and
Pathway Plan), they may be located within an RP District provided the trail width shall be no
greater than 12 feet wide(as determined by the standards in the City's Trails and Pathway Plan),,
A regional trail (although usually paved), is desired to be sited within an RC District
because of the pedestrian experience and reduction of conflict between trail users and
vehicles / development if required to be sited outside of an RCPA. Development
within the RC District or its buffer is required meet the "avoidance" and
"minimization"requirements of LOC 50.16.105,thus requiring the stream crossing to
minimize impacts.
D, If allowed pursuant to the subsections of this criterion (iv), the applicant
shall comply with the following criteria.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 29 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
133
(Al). Streets,driveways and bridges shall be the minimum width necessary
to protect resources within the RP district or buffer while also allowing for safe passage of vehicles
and/or pedestrians.
(Ba. Stream and/or wetlands crossings shall be avoided if practicable,.
Where unavoidable,the applicant shall use bridges or arched culverts that are wildlife friendly and
do not disturb the natural stream bed. The number of stream or wetland crossings for driveways
shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for
adjacent lots;
"If practicable"is deleted because it is duplicative to the"avoided"test.
This development standard subcriterion is addressing access to lots by means of
driveways,not private or public streets,or public transportation facilities.
(C.;,3j. If applicable, The- the applicant shall plan for future extension of
shared access, access easement, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to
avoid subsequent encroachments into the RP District or 1-u:ff buffer;
This subcriterion would be applicable to development of private streets and
driveways,but not public streets and public transportation facilities.
(D4). The applicant shall mitigate for loss of any portion of an RP Resource
pursuant to LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110.
v. Structures,Parking Areas,Pathways,Driveways,Lighting and Fences.
A. 1. Except as provided in subsection(2)(a)(iv) above and subsection E_below,
rstructures, parking areas, active use recreation facilities streets and driveways shall be set
back at least 10 feet from an RP District buffer.
"New" has been removed, so this section is applicable to all structures — new or new
remodeling.
The reference to subsection E is added, to exempt boat houses, boat docks, and the like
from the 10 feet setback requirement.
2. In addition to other applicable standards, Accessory-accessory structures,
patios, decks, and similar outdoor facilities, and lighting meeting, the-e iteria of 1_C...... :1 ,005
shall not be placed -closer than 3 feet from the resource buffer boundary.
This amendment simplifies the text, by removing specific zone standards, because those
are always applicable. Also, "patios" is added to the listing as similar to decks. Lighting
has been expressly excluded from within 3 feet of the boundary, consistent with current
interpretation.
B. Passive use recreation facilities, such as soft surface trails and pedestrian
bridges,may be located within the RP district or its buffer.
1. Any disturbed land area shall be restored with plants as described on the
Restoration Plants List.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 30 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
134
C. Exterior lights are not allowed within the RP District or its buffer; any
exterior lighting outside of the RP District or its buffer shall be hooded and positioned so that light
does not shine directly into the RP District and its buffer.
This amendment clarifies that lighting is not to shine in the RP District buffer, as well
as the District.
D. Fences shall not be placed in a resource or its buffer, unless they are
constructed so that:
• the bottom of the fence(except for posts)is not less than 12" above ground,
• the top of the fence is no taller than 4 feet tall,
• the fence is not within 20 ft. of a stream centerline,
• the fence is not within a wetland,
or of another design approved by the City Manger,to allow wildlife passage.
This change creates a clear and objective standard for a wildlife friendly fence, as
discussed in for protected tree groves, while still allowing other designs approved by
the City,Manager. It prohibits fences that are actually in wetlands and small streams.
vi. Resource Enhancement Projects. Resource enhancement projects such as bank
stabilization, restoration plantings, in-channel habitat improvements, and similar projects which
propose to improve or maintain the quality of a natural resource within RP Districts or RP Iistrict
buffer pursuant to LOC 50.16.070 shall be approved if the applicant demonstrates that all of the
following criteria are met:
The area of application of this section is proposed to be expanded to include the RP
Resource buffer created by LOC 50.16.070. The RP buffer provides environmental
functions and values and in other development standards, the RP resource buffer receives
similar protection as the RP District,
A. The project will cause the--minniniumno permanent degradation, or loss of
natural features in the stream corridor rneees;ary-tc--ammmmekne4h •enha ;-eim m-f g ec4; and
B. There will be a:.signi.fieam-improvement in the quality of at least one function
or value of the resource; and
This change is to reflect that the fact that in any resource enhancement project, there is
bound to be some temporary degradation or loss of natural features in a stream corridor to
accommodate the project, but so long as there is no permanent degradation_and there is
some improvement in the value of the resource, then the project should be approvable.
This change is to also to preserve the manner of review of these projects as ministerial
(non-discretionary standard),as opposed to a minor review process.
C. Only vegetation described in the Re i Plant List as appropriate for
resource landscaping shall be planted. For the purpose of this subsection, "resource enhancement
project" does not include required mitigation pursuant to LOC Sections 50.16.100 to 50.16.110.
vii. Limited Hazardous Materials Storage. Hazardous material,as defined by the
Department of Environment Quality,or development providing for the storage or processing of
materials that are buoyant, flammable, explosive,toxic, or that could be injurious to human,
animal,or plant life are prohibited in the RP District and its buffer.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 31 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
135
Exceptions:
A. Materials that are typically used for household purposes and in quantities
which are normal for household use.
B. Materials that are stored in a boathouse and are typically used for
recreational boat operation and maintenance.
Title 3 requires that hazardous materials not be stored in sensitive lands. This makes
sense, although it has not been a particular problem in Lake Oswego. The language is
almost identical to the language in the flood control section(LOC 50.44),and recognizes
that it is sometimes appropriate to store small quantities of hazardous materials near
water-dependent uses(e.g. in boathouses).
viii. Signs and Kiosks. Signs and kiosks arepermitted in the following locations;
A. Within 8 feet of the improved portions of public streets and trails;
13. Minor or major public facilities,
subject to LOC Article 47 (Sign Code),provided the permanent land disturbance area of any sign
or cluster of signs may not exceed 12 square feet.
Development, including signs, is not allowed in the riparian corridor. But signage may
be required for safety and information at public facilities and along trails and roads;
where these facilities are allowed,signs should be allowed also.
b. General Development Standards. In carrying out the permitted development activity,
the applicant shall also comply with the following general development standards, if applicable to
the proposed development, and the construction standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095:
i. Resource Alterations.
A. Streams shall not be impounded or diverted from their natural channels unless
the applicant demonstrates:
(1) The diversion or impoundment will cause minimum degradation or loss of
natural features in the stream corridor;
(2) The diversion will not cause erosion or otherwise cause damage
downstream of the development site; and at least one of the following criteria are met:
(a) A diversion would return a previously altered stream to its original
location;or
(b) A stream channel occupies all or most of a legally created lot; or
(c) An impoundment is designed to reduce flooding or improve water
quality.
B. A wetland shall not be impounded or the hydrology of the wetland modified
through such activities as draining the resource or enlargement of the resource to create a pond,
unless it can be demonstrated that the criteria for allowing resource enhancement in LOC
50.16.075 (2)(a)(vi)have been met.
ii. (Reserved)
Land Divisions and Lot Line Adjustments. The following standards apply to
ro erties containin an RP District or its buffer for applications for land divisions including
partitions, subdivisions, and Planned Developments (PDs), and to lot line adjustmentso
containing an RP District or its buffer:
a. All new lots or reconfigured lots_proposed on lands that include an RP District or RP
District buffer shall have designated sites for buildingsq arwcer€rd utility ire that
are located outside of the delineated RP resource and buffer area. A lot division or lot line
adjustment shall not create a lot that would necessitate, due to the presence of RP or RC resources
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 32 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
136
on the created lot, an exception under LOC 50.16.085 in order to site a dwelling upon the proposed
lot.
The ability to locate utility service and driveways for access to sites is 'addressed in
subsections (iii) and (iv) above, which only permits development when "no other
practicable alternative" [utilities] and "no other practicable method of access"
[driveways].
In addition, subsection(iv)(C)requires any access through an RP District being created to
serve an existing lot be planned for future extension to buildable areas. This amendment
eliminates the prohibition of utility service and vehicle access for new lots occurring with
an RP District; subsections (iii) and (iv) presently appear to prohibit the creation of new
lots if they are served by an existing road or driveway that passes through a resource area.
This amendment also applies the prohibition against creating resource encumbered lots to
lot line adjustments. It is also expressly addressed in this section:
Section 5016.015'Applicability.
1 This Article applies to all lands designated as RP or RC on the Sensitive
Lands Map and Atlas.
2. Sensitive Lands Development Review Required.
a. Development that would result in any land disturbance within the RP or
RC District,or within 35 feet of the RP District boundary as shown on maps in the
Sensitive Lands Atlas shall be subject to the standards and criteria identified in
LOC 50.16.030
b. Land divisions, lot line adjustments, mitigation proposals, and
adjustments of a District Boundary shall be subject to the standards and criteria
identified in LOC 50.16.030.
Exception: This standard shall not apply to lots established as open space tracts, for
transfer to a public agency or private trustee to manage as a natural area, or where the entire lot is
included in a conservation easement that prohibits development on the site;and,
b. Permanent signage is required in planned developments and subdivisions to identify
the RP District and buffer area where any common open space protects an inventoried natural
resource through conditions of approval. The signage shall be installed before any occupancy
permit is issued. Such signage shall be reviewed as part of the development review process, and
shall meet the standards of LOC Chapter 47.
Section 50.16.090 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal.
1. Purpose. The Oswego Canal was originally constructed and continues to be used for
conveying water from the Tualatin River to Oswego Lake for the purpose of enhancing and
maintaining the lake. Although originally artificial, certain portions of the Oswego Canal have
acquired the characteristics of a RP Class I and Class II stream corridor. The Canal provides the
primary source of water to Oswego Lake for the purposes of recreation,navigation, scenic value,
irrigation,maintenance and enhancement of water quality and to produce hydroelectric power. It
is also an important element of flood and storm water control for Oswego Lake and surrounding
areas and it serves as the route for a sanitary sewer interceptor which is necessary to provide
sewer service to several areas of Lake Oswego. This Ailirle-section is applicable to the portions
of Oswego Canal described as beginning immediately south of the Bryant Road bridge and
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 33 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
137
extending to the Tualatin River as illustrated by Appendix 50.16-C. These regulations are
intended to preserve the community-wide benefits of the natural resource functions and values of
the Canal,but are not intended:
a. To prevent the Lake Oswego Corporation from exercising its water rights to ensure an
unimpeded supply of water to Oswego Lake;
b. To prevent the Lake Corporation from undertaking necessary management and
maintenance activities to ensure water quality of the Canal or Oswego Lake, or
c. To prevent the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation from repairing,
maintaining or making necessary improvements to essential public facilities and flood
management measures within the Canal per LOC Article 50.44 Flood Plain, applicable Federal
Emergency Management Association(FEMA)regulations, and any other City codes or standards
that are applicable.
2. Exempt Activities. The following activities within the Oswego Canal Stream Corridor are
exempt from the requirements of this Article when undertaken by the City of Lake Oswego or the
Lake Corporation:
a. Operation of the Oswego Canal headgate,including variation of water flow rates and
emergency or routine maintenance and repairs of the headgate, approaches to the headgate,
associated banks and channel including ripraped areas,reinforcement areas, gabions and other
features;
b. Emergency and routine removal of fallen trees, siltation, slides and other debris from the
channel and banks of the canal and buffer areas as needed to ensure a continuous flow of water to
Oswego Lake and to prevent flood damage;
c. Treatment of waters or flows of water for water quality purposes, and the control or
eradication of aquatic weeds and similar threats to the aquatic environment of Oswego Lake;
d. Emergency and routine repair and maintenance of failing or collapsed sections of the
canal bank or buffers,including removal of contributing vegetation.
e. Maintenance,major repair of the Oswego Canal sanitary sewer interceptor and any
service laterals connecting to the sewer.
3. Activities Approved Pursuant to a Maintenance and Management Plan. Activities other
than those described as exempt above, or incidental thereto, shall be reviewed as a minor
development .y the City Manager when proposed by the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake
Corporation and when as part of an approved maintenance and management plan. Activities
approved pursuant to a maintenance and management plan are subject to the minor development
review criteria of LOC 50.79.025 and any other City Codes or Standards that are applicable.
These projects are exempt from the RP District requirements.
4. Environmental Mitigation Required. Any effects of the above activities in subsection(3)
which impact the Canal's stream corridor functions and values as determined by the adopted
ESEE analysis,whether when conducted either as part of an approved maintenance and
management plan or in the course of an emergency shall be mitigated pursuant to a plan approved
by the City 1Via agerreviewing authority. The mitigation plan shall be appropriate to the scale of
disturbance, conform to the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers requirements and shall also,to the extent practical,replace plant communities and
wildlife habitat disturbed by the above activities.
This amendment is to clarify that the"above activities"do not apply to the exempt
activities under subsection(2). The"in the course of an emergency"is not within the
scope of subsection(3),but is in the scope of subsection(2),which is exempt from LOC
50.16.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 34 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
138
Till's amendment removes the City Manager as arguably the Only review:authority,under
the minor development process.
5. Boat Houses. Boat houses and docks shall not be placed within the portions of the
Oswego Canal stream corridor or its buffer areas as described in LOC 50.16.090 above and
illustrated by Appendix 50.16-C.
Section 50.16.095 Construction Standards
To41owmg uppforaI of an grading. < .
de.,-elopraerit-site-which venni-ins a RP-or-RC-Distri,a,-the An owner applietit-shall submit a
construction plan and narrative -which -demonstra1es- .to the satisfadion oi=-the City
EngineerManager , - prior to any
grading, clearing, or construction or-on a development site which contains a RP or RC District,
The construction plan and narrative shall demonstrate that the following standards will be met:
An owner should be required to comply with the construction standards not just when
there is an application for development required, but whenever grading, clearing, or
construction takes place adjacent an RC or RP district. (Even if the development is
exempt from review,it must still meet construction standards,)
The code refers to the City Engineer for review authority for Sensitive Lands projects,
however,the development review manager, code enforcement specialist,natural resource
Planner, or other City Manager designee are more likely to be called upon to review
issues.
1. RC Protection Areas or RC Districts where no PFeteetion.protectiori areas have
been approved and ° RP Resources District and buffers shall be protected during
construction with either:
This amendment is made to provide the same level of protection to RP District
and buffer area as is currently provided to unclelineated RC Districts during
construction.
a. ,3-A minimum 4-6 feet tall chain link fencing secured with a minimum of
4-_0.._feet tall steel posts. The fencing shall be in place and maintained for the duration of
construction. In addition,temporary signage shall be placed on the fencing which shall clearly
identify the resource District and shall state the penalty for violations of this Article
This amendment conforms to the 6'tree protection fencing required in LOC 55.08
(Tree Protection).
or
b. Such alternative method to subsection(a)above that is approved by the
City Manager to demarcate and protect the RCPA or RC/RP District from the adverse effects of
construction activity uppn the resources.
This amendment is proposed to provide some flexibility to address site
constrictions when a fence would be impractical to install or when a less intrusive
means could protect the resource.
Ordinance 2527-Attachment B 35 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
139
2. RC protection boundaries, delineated resource boundaries and buffer boundaries, as
applicable, shall be located and staked by a qualified professional prior to placement of fencing
and other protective measures.
3. Hazardous Materials. The site shall be inventoried for hazardous materials, debris and
noxious materials, and these materials shall be removed prior to the development of the site.
4. No construction, demolition, grading, or site clearing shall begin until after protective
measures, signs, and erosion control measures are in place and have been inspected and approved
by the City Manager and all applicable permits have been issued. Fencing and other protective
measures shall not be removed, even temporarily,without the permission of the City Manager,
5. No stockpiling of fill materials, or parking or storage of construction equipment shall be
allowed within a resource District.
6. When transportation facilities, pathways, utilities, or structures are approved within a
delineated RP resource, they shall be constructed in such a way that a minimum of excavation is
required and so that no permanentt draining or filling of a stream corridor or wetland will occur.
This amendment is proposed to recognize that when structures,utilities,etc.are authorized
within a delineated RP resource,the construction method may require temporary draining
of a stream or wetland in order to accomplish the construction.
7. Surface runoff and other water sources supplying;hydrology to an RP District shall be
designed and maintained so as not to adversely impact the functions and values of the resource.
The construction standard should
address the manner of handling change in
surface water
runoff or other water sources,i,e., saturated ground due to springs that provide water to an
RP Resource, in order to avoid creating damage to the resource, and in some, cases
additional drainage to the stream corridor or wetland may be preferred.
78. Any additional construction requirements imposed as conditions of approval or which may
be required by the Development Standards,the Lake Oswego Building Code (LOC Chapter 45) or
the Erosion Control Code(LOC Chapter 52).
Section 50.16.105 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required.
The approving authority shall permit development allowable within:
• dAn RC Protection Area,
• or aA delineated RP resource;or
• RP resource buffer established by LOC 50.16.070
pursuant to LOC 50.16.060 or 50.16.075 through 50.16.085, whichever is applicable, only if it
finds that the following progressive steps have been met:
The RP buffer has resource functions and values,and therefore if development activities
occur within the buffer,mitigation should occur.The resource and resource buffer are
treated the same elsewhere in the code,
1. Step #1-Avoidance: The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the
resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal
demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district
resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district
cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 36 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
140
changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing
development of the property.
2. Step #2-Minimization: If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impacts on
the resource according to subsection (2)(a), above, and the review authority finds that detrimental
impacts cannot be avoided;then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that:
a. Alternative and significantly different site plans and development locations on the
subject site have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally
damaging; and
b. When mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or
values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC 50,16,110 (5) or (6), whichever is
applicable.
Section 50.16.110 Mitigation Requirements
1. Mitigation Plan. When mitigation is proposed or required as part of a development
application, or when required or imposed as a result of a violation of this Code,the applicant shall
provide a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that:
a. For proposed development, Demonstrates trates--demonstrates compliance with LOC
50.16.105 and this section. For mitigation of violations of this Code, demonstrates compliance
with LOC 50.1 6.1 05(2)(b).
a The amendment re-states the requirement in LOC 50.6.015(6) that mitigation is
required for violations.
o Currently code enforcement for resource damage requires mitigation, however, there
is no mechanism for the review of the mitigation plans.
o The amendment specifies the different mitigation requirements for development and
code violations
b. Includes a maintenance and monitoring plan
over..-time. The maintenance and monitoring plan shall include task timelines and quantitative
goals to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time. As part of the monitoring plan, the
applicant or other legally responsible agent shall provide an annual report to the City Manager on
October 31st of each year for a 3 year period. The report shall be prepared by a qualified
professional and shall document site conditions with narrative and pictures.
To be meaningful, the plan should include measurable goals and a timeline for
accomplishing them.
c. Provisions for regular maintenance and periodic monitoring of the mitigation site.
Failure to comply with an approved mitigation plan shall be deemed a violation of this Code
and a public nuisance and may be enforced pursuant to LOC Articles 34.04 and 34,08.
2. If a Division of State Lands (DSL) wetland permit, Army Corp. of Engineers, or other
State or Federal permit is also required, the City shall not issue a building permit until all
applicable State and Federal wetland permit approvals have been granted.
3. Mitigation shall be completed prior to a final inspection, issuance of a final occupancy
permit,or acceptance of a public improvement.
4. On-site mitigation is required where possible,taking into consideration the existing natural
and human-made features of a site. If the review authority finds that on-site mitigation is not
possible,then off-site mitigation shall be permitted according to the following priorities:
a. Within the same drainage system (as defined by the Lake Oswego Surface Water
Management Plan or the Winterowd Natural Resources Inventory)and within the City limits; or
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 37 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
141
b. Outside of the drainage system,but inside the City limits;or
c. Outside the drainage system and City limits, but within the Lake Oswego Urban
Services Boundary.
5. Stream corridors and tree groves: When mitigation is proposed, the review authority shall
require a minimum mitigation ratio (area of resource District created or enhanced to area of
resource District lost)of 1:1 for stream corridor and tree grove resources.
6. Wetlands: When wetland mitigation is proposed within an RP Class I or Class II District,
the review authority shall require minimum mitigation ratios (area of wetland created or enhanced
to area of wetland lost)as follows:
a. Wetlands Creation or Restoration-2:1 ratio
b. Wetlands Enhancement -3:1 ratio
c. Wetlands Creation, Restoration or Enhancement- 5:1 ratio where the wetland is a
Class I RP District and is forested or contains a sensitive, threatened or endangered species as
identified in an adopted ESEE inventory.
7. Vegetation restoration shall be required to mitigate the loss of plant communities disturbed
by development activities. In-kind vegetation shall be required for all mitigation projects,
including trees, shrubs,and ground cover plants as identified on the Plants List(on file
in the Planning fpart..n.entDivision). The restoration plant community chosen shall recreate a
diverse and healthy environment which is compatible with the resource.
8. Initial 3 Year Bonding Period.
a. Except as provided in subsection(8)(d)of this section,the applicant or property owner
of a development subject to an approved mitigation plan shall post a performance bond or a letter
of credit to the City that is equal to 120% of the value of the improvements installed pursuant to
the plan for a 3 year period. The bond shall be posted prior to the issuance of a building permit to
ensure the success of mitigation improvements and the survival of plant materials.
b. The performance bond or the letter of credit will be released by the City after three(3)
years upon receiving proof that the mitigation measures have been successfully implemented
according to approved plans. Following release of the fmancial guarantee,the property owner(s)or
other designated party (such as a homeowners association) shall remain responsible for
maintenance of the resource.
c. If mitigation improvements fail during the bonding period and the responsible party
does not replace said improvements after notification by the City, the bond shall be forfeited and
shall be used by the City to correct the problem pursuant to the Mitigation Plan and the Conditions
of approval.
d. Property owners of individual tax lots that are lots of record which are zoned for
single family residential use,are not large enough to be further divided, and were in existence prior
to the date this Article becomes effective shall be exempt from these bonding requirements.
Ordinance 2527—Attachment B 38 12-02-08
Sensitive Lands(LU 08-0051)
142