The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 2018-11-06 AGENDA LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING 11.4 p November 6, 2018 3:00 p.m. :1111111PREGo___` Council Chambers, City Hall Contact: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder The agenda was modified on 11/2 to add item 9.5, Email: asimpson@lakeoswego.city Occupational Requirements for the Development Phone: 503 534 4225 Review Commission and Voting Eligibility for Youth Members on Advisory Boards The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Manager's Office at 503-635-0215 48 hours before the meeting. Electronic presentations must be delivered to the City Recorder 24 hours prior to the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (LORA) 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. BOARD BUSINESS 4.1 City Hall Schematic Design Approval Motion: Move to approve the schematic design for the new city hall. 4.2 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 4.2.1 June 5, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes 4.2.2 June 21, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes 4.2.3 July 3, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes 4.2.4 July 17, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes 4.2.5 September 18, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. 5. ADJOURNMENT, LORA 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 6. CALL TO ORDER, CITY COUNCIL 7. 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 three minutes per individual will apply. Citizen comment will not exceed thirty minutes in total. 7.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Resolution 18-47, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing a Special Procurement Using the Competitive Proposal Process of Contracting in Lieu of Competitive Bidding for the Construction Contract for the Boones Ferry Road — Phase 1 Project. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 18-47. Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Crystal Shum, PE, Project Lead, Engineering Department 3. Testimony: the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff 8.2 Ordinance 2797, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and Updating Various Provisions (2018), Including Increasing Setbacks on Lots Zoned High Density When They Abut Lots that will be Zoned Low Density Upon Annexation; Solar Code Tree Terminology; Solar Access Permit Removal; Utility Undergrounding Exemptions, and Adopting Findings (LU 18-0035). Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2797. Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner 3. Testimony: the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 9.1 Annexation and Service to Unincorporated Areas Resolution 18-49, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adopting a Policy on Service Availability for Annexations. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 18-49. Resolution 18-50, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Concerning Services to Unincorporated Areas. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 18-50. 9.2 Parks Bond Renewal Survey Motion: Move to approve the Community Perception Survey, Parks Bond Renewal Survey. 9.3. Trends in Fire Cost of Compensation 9.4 Findings, Conclusions and Order, Appeal of a Development Review Commission Decision on a Request for Approval of a Six-lot Subdivision and Modification of Delineated RP District at 1107 Yates Street (LU 17-0084/AP 18-08) Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order affirming the decision of the Development Review Commission as modified to add a condition, and approving LU 17-0084 subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in the Order. 9.5 Occupational Requirements for the Development Review Commission and Voting Eligibility for Youth Members on Advisory Boards 10. CONSENT AGENDA 10.1 Award of a Public Improvement Contract for Construction of WO 246 - Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvement Project Motion: Move to award a public improvement contract to Pacific Excavation in the amount of$2,480,000.00 for Work Order 246—Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvements Project. 10.2 Resolution 18-41, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing a First Lease Modification Agreement for the Police Training and Evidence Storage Space 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 18-41. 10.3 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 10.3.1 September 18, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. 11. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 12. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 13. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 14. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 4.1 o�c�P` Os� REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT V INF O TO: Kent Studebaker, Board Chair Members of the Board FROM: Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: NEW CITY HALL SCHEMATIC DESIGN DATE: October 26, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the schematic design for the new city hall. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The schematic design for the new city hall was completed and priced by the project's CM/GC. The project team is requesting the LORA Board's input and approval to move the project into the design development phase. The new city hall will provide a seismically safe, secure, modern, and better functioning building for the community for generations. BACKGROUND On July 17, the LORA Board approved the revised concept for the new city hall. The concept includes two phases; constructing a new city hall on the properties adjacent to the existing city hall building, and constructing a new parking lot and public plazas following the demolition of city hall. The revised concept emerged as the option that best met the objectives for constructing a seismically safe, secure, and adequately sized public safety facility and addressing the facility needs for city hall functions. The addition of the second phase will create convenient and accessible parking for city hall visitors, and provide pedestrian amenities in the eastern blocks of the east end commercial district. Background materials and project information is on the city's website at www.lakeoswego.city/lora/new-city-hall-project. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 DISCUSSION Since the Board's approval of the concept, the project team worked together and with city staff to update the floor plans, refine the plans for phase 2, develop the exterior design, and confirm a number of details to have more information for the pricing. We were able to expedite this work because of the previous amount of effort that went into the space planning, public input, and basis of design for the police and civic center concepts. Program and Layout The building will be three stories of office space on top of one floor of secure parking for the police department. The garage will also have some police functions and storage. The police department is on the first floor, which will be partially underground at the A Avenue elevation. City hall departments and services are arranged on the 2nd and 3rd floors. The 2nd floor is at ground level at A Avenue and from the plaza/parking lot that will be constructed once the new city hall is complete. The public reception and lobbies are situated along the west side of the building adjacent to the new parking area. The multifunctional City Council Chambers/Municipal Court/EOC is featured prominently on the 3rd floor along A Avenue. The floor plans are included in this report as attachment 3. Some of the highlights include: • The city council chambers and the courtroom are combined with a dividable wall similar to what exists in the current city hall. The combined size of the room is about 2,500 square feet. • The building will have 7 total conference rooms not including the council chambers. Of those, 4 are located in the public lobby area so that they can be conveniently accessed and used by the community. After hours, they can be accessed while the remainder of the building can be secured. • The lobby and public areas are situated along the west side of the building, making for an attractive and unified connection to the new parking and plaza area. • Planning, Building, Engineering, and Citizen Information is located on the 2nd floor, adjacent to the new customer parking lot and at grade to A Avenue. This will provide the most convenient access to the most visited departments. • Municipal court service and the finance counter (passports and utility billing) are on the 3rd floor, again situated along the lobby area that will overlook the new parking/plaza. • The building will include a new emergency generator and underground storage tank that will provide emergency backup power for the building for up to five days. Each floor of the new building is roughly 17,600 square feet for a total of 53,000 square feet, not including the garage. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 Design The design of the building's exterior is an elegant and cost-sensitive approach that reflects its civic nature and function. The community-oriented programmatic elements of the building face both A Avenue and the new public parking area. These key areas are the most visually accessible and interfacing with the downtown, establishing transparency for government function and a focal point for the community's access and use of City Hall. The simple and elegant detailing of these north and the west faces of the building feature an ample amount of glazing along public plazas and are highlighted by two iconic gabled roof forms. The east and south elevations incorporate the same materiality and highlight the administrative and office functions of city hall in an appropriate manner. The proposed exterior building materials evoke natural elements such as wood and stone and incorporate familiar downtown design elements such as basalt stone. The style is suggestive of northwest regional architecture with thoughtful incorporation of the downtown Lake Oswego style. The architectural detail will continue to evolve as the project progresses in design development. The site plan illustrates how the building will occupy the new space and interact with the new parking and plaza. Retail Tenant Spaces (Arts Council of Lake Oswego and Friends of the Library Booktique) The design team met with the non-profits to present and discuss possible layout options for the tenant spaces. The total square footage of the space is 2,709, so an even split of the area would amount to about 1,300 square feet for each organization. Although they expressed interest in having more space than what is available, both groups are working with their boards to determine how they may be able to make that space work. The project includes the design and tenant improvements for those space, and we are not assuming that either organization would be responsible to pay a rental fee. The 1.5%for art ordinance also applies to this project. The project would need to transfer 1.5% of the construction cost (when the Guaranteed Maximum Price is set) to the Public Art Fund. To maximize the utility of the funds, the project team will explore opportunities with the Arts Council to incorporate functional art into the design. Sustainability The building is being designed to meet the LEED gold standard. Solar panels will be affixed on the roof to the maximum extent possible. But due to the budget constraints, the building is no 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 longer enrolled in the Energy Trust's path to net zero (energy) program, which was a goal of the previous concepts. As a cost deferment strategy to also improve the energy efficiency and life cycle cost of the building, staff engaged with a qualified energy service company to explore a performance contracting opportunity. Under this arrangement, the firm would propose energy efficiency measures to incorporate into the building and guarantee the energy performance over what is proposed in the schematic design. Through third party financing, the city would pay for those measures over time, ideally with a portion of the payment coming from the energy cost savings. While the total project cost would be higher because of the upgrades and financing, the upfront costs for mechanical and electric systems would be deferred, and the building would be more efficient. The company is developing a proposal at no cost for the project team's consideration. If it is deemed a viable and promising scenario, we may bring it back to the Board for your consideration. Factoring into this decision would be the added complexity to the project (adding another design-bid-operator to the team) and potential impacts to the schedule. FISCAL IMPACT The construction cost estimate for the schematic design for both phases is $32.14 million. The total project cost estimate, which includes soft costs and a 10% contingency, is $41.8 million. This is very close to the previous estimate that was made after the Board added demolition of the existing building and construction of a parking lot and plaza to the project scope. Cost reduction options have been developed, but our recommendation is to continue to proceed into design development. At this point, our funding strategy is to continue to explore a combination of cost reduction strategies as the design develops and plan to release a portion of the project contingency to fund the second phase of the project if the next phase and pricing stays on track. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the LORA Board approve the schematic design and direct the project team to proceed with the design development phase. NEXT STEPS & SCHEDULE The team is working on an aggressive schedule to break ground next summer to take advantage of the preferred construction weather window and to avoid as much construction cost escalation as possible. The schedule anticipates the development review application to be submitted in January with construction to start for an early work package of site utilities, demolition, excavation, and 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 shoring in June or July 2019. This will require an uncommon early permitting and bid package for that summer work. Under this schedule, we will immediately break ground following the Board's final approval of the CM/GC's guaranteed maximum price (GMP) in June. Another cost containment strategy is the buyout of certain materials early to avoid cost escalation. This could require LORA Board actions prior to the final approval of the GMP. The anticipated end of construction/move in date is spring of 2021. ATTACHMENTS 1. New City Hall Schematic Design Perspectives 2. Site Plan/Landscape Plan 3. Floor Plans 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us i i t ,, I f 0000. 1 1 IN 111 rii ,, , , 111 n • . 'ilk.:M)!I'I.1 - St.01! ." 'I''.. ' --1" F... .. 17 LI141.1" , r... • Ir -- ' P.. I 5f f" _ 2 T - . r F �. yam -- — - I r'i'' ,r i '1 1 E1 I i - - �, t. 2 i.:"7: :" A.•- ,c,,41,, - a F SW Entry Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M • November 1,2018 2170184.00 ill A Tory III , .,,w,.ii. '9 '.' I.. 1 1:L._ . -r-- 1. • ".' .;-7".•- ,.. -.:,I. .... I! 11 ,I, ' ill r 1111111 LAKE OSWEGO CITY MALL : -._.,iiir., • I'7-.: .4.... _. ._ ______ ii iI ill Il ..._.._„. liil!!I,I'I11'I IIIIIIII 'ifil!f rill II1 ... ! 6 . , , .ir .! IP III . . • ._ MEM::: ---_:: • ----_ � .. ' ' II II. :::7 7:ii". '.'...'-'''-- - -....-' ''..7-77-71'.."''....-'..'-'I I r":4'-'':.'".''....1'..-.1 141.4171! .1.MI..117..'''V.--"' ,I 'I L i , I'1 1 , I 11�1I 'I 'I:1. I II III'; I ! ; :-. :::1! ...7'..''. :17,f- . ^�.. I '! • 11. 11 1-''...14:ii:':j 1 i'' 'i't:1 I'' NW Entry Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M . November 1,2018 2170184.00 r F • z •f - . a. WIE ! llirK—:- 1 1 4L1 . -. I I a. I 1! ... .• . a. ,.... �~ a _ . , ram...--. ... a-r . .,,_, _ _ ...., ..,. , ____,.„ _ _ :. ; -� � ,,, - III'11; p,I 1�'; '11' JIIn, I I ii 1" � ,.:- MI; .ill li ,.I�' I r- 1 : 1,, I I 1 ..; I II I , I, III -- 1.. Iii��Il I� � �In l it , IA III I I � r1 ■ 1 1111 jl' I!, ��III ll�i IIf[f II I " I'I 1I 1 I try �. - ..." j'+ 1 11 11111t llil�lli[�IE [I1[ I. a t k id:i'l — _ j jI I I I ! , 1I1 — ---_ _ f I 1 4110lr11 I ,I fit' �',= ; =---.-_:"„ 1 1 j 1 ' tl` III, ' .�IINMMII�I I j I `1;; 1 ' 1 :, J a _ 1 j I I I I` I. 1 fit. .i■i.■ ' I'.H ';I I`I 4 f 1 ,1 1 . " , I 1 , I 1 1 I 1 t , ��MNiil , E I `{ 11 `I III�i■i , I 1 7' -„--' I`` 1 I j M NE Corner Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M November 1,2018 2170184.00 I - --f - — --_ - - . 1 1 I j 1 1 " I 1 1 1 — — ----------1111r1141 1 0 1 \ _1 4 II .- , 04101.11 1 41010111P1 I 1111 • I 011011 11 ' -.-- .. 1 1 I , 1 \ i_vig011.1 , 4., .... ......!r4 .. A ...... I , ........ i.....„., . ..,...................•_ - - , • -7.---- , . , 0411. • k II_ o ' MI , . . ik.II I:: 'i..:„...,...: ... I ,f ..,. i,. . am—...1.L..—m—imi#10.,, -r, ;.,,,.. a JIIS..,, ,, , , ,,, ,..... ,, r P-,•:,,,k L T-7.4 .," 411 . 1 1. . , .. , :: 6 I.1.•,..•...7 _ IN • . .., •ft — - • k 1.. I ' I i 4 . 4.;• 1 ' ' 1111 '''''1..;:l'I..''•Ffik' r ''''' :•"...- 1), „.„ '1 1, ''::'i i'''.1r..i 4' ''.4. l•te" 1 • ' ., 4- ','- A • - - .. . • 1. . — ........ 1,1.:: ,t '''`:•'''T.:-a''' fi.. .. a 1,1 1 . - i• i! 1 1r 141 14 101# .., , ° ...J1 t, — ,.. . 16. , i •14 II' .l m 1 ' i k• • Lo i I ,I, 1 r • . 1 •li'r . , 1 ,• 1..:. • 1 'i 1 iii'16 li ,_ ,. - ormaililliN. .....f SE Corner Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M • 2170184 00 November 1,2018 f I 1 \,. 7,',i-c--:...., ,. , -----.--- - _____ 0 ..:,.,--.. 1. j _.,.._----- 1 ----- ----\ \ \ 1 I. ' I\ 11‘ fI ...z.:1: .:"..--::-----::::------ i .,ljllll9l::::: w SO hi. d 4' li , pp +`y j MINA in. 7 l T. i i , ! i'-- . .:, r 1 ,,, .. . y+ y 1■ i i I .., . ----.7---- it _�dR ''rA" l 1 'l IL, . :,,s--1: • 1 \ 'til:. i':' -411111141111%,4,1 .. 400 4 y'�r i t411k• !: x _ ._ , !,- -_;'-_,,• T--: '. l �cg ', •~ s r � pµT �v • . 1**".....,..... ..„.„...:***3/4 .rii., , 1 41.: .". • it" ,,,_,..14)ill 'IIIIIIII"lirllik row .". .„:.,,./...'.,.,:.:' ''' : t,444-4,L, „ NW Aerial Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M • November 1,2018 2170184.00 _______,_ __ --___,„:„...„. .... ,---------- N -------,-„_ ..,.... ....,_ . :,:. .....,,,„,, ,„ . --! .... .........---- . .. ,I4 .. • tY µ —-- • 1 r.• • ... _ i4. Y�4�S - 111�11111j I' III ` ' �_ • __� I� .�� ill k:,1!.•-•... .. I . • ,. , , , , Jr. i i L~ •• - - mac-.. ill' +pSi} F 'IC ' •°;•:•"-•"'-- - liqtai,..---"\. ••. • 1 ---•'.-- 'P.--,:r'. T' . - '...:.--"L''''• . 1.1.•Z - � i+ � a i 'Y4 .' ..:.b , ik....:.,.,...„. Oli t_r-..- #110" --- —, 1I�I1.I f I • _ 40. . -._ . � � •II-'"' 1- }f • . ..,. . -N. N... III ..I. _ `,. I .I. 1 aa, ! r a a i ° + Y fi 4 1 s . , „........, 1 r , y r f b �' ..„. :. 4 . 11. 14''._ -. .__AllillalMillikk. ' tr SW Aerial Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M November 1,2018 2170184.00 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED ra N O El XI RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE - - - - WATER VALVE X 0 M CENTERLINE - - - - WATER VAULT 0 11>1>ir EASEMENT - - - - - - FIRE HYDRANT AV IX El -E?- * -f53 - I ell-l - - - -E5 - - - - T - - - PHASE LINE - - IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX EEO Architecture Interiors ' • GAS METER El Planning Engineering TREE o GAS VALVE D4A AVENUE •TYP UTILITY POLE `a) • SIGN _a- UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE ANCHOR E- L ► -71 i° = FENCE x x ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER '�"' X� Portland,OR ' '"� s = t I ELECTRIC El 503.224.9560 © 8.5 f I ELECTRIC LINE (OVERHEAD) OH ELE TRI METER bh © I o o - o �D o" o ° O I �, s� Vancouver,WA b ` n 1 / STORM MANHOLE Q O 4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE ° 360.695.7879 'F t ;n ❑ ,r ,r `i I CATCH BASIN IIIII ® OD TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL BOX E31 Seattle,WA •` 0-4 o , 0 00 41041) I I 206.749.9993 -I - -� - �� L , / - scB CLEANOUT o`" o LIGHT POLE # �- 0- www.mcknze.com / ,/� 6.73' g 6.79 I I 0 sce SANITARY MANHOLE S COMMUNICATIONS CABINET cR° ❑ ❑ J / 1 I I I 12 • 0 O16 f 14 f 14 / o oo �,O,O,O,O,+o � 15' 13'±_1 0 WATER METER 0 STREET LIGHT PULL BOX ER o _1_ rrrr �r� Y' M AC I< E N Z I E - a __ _ 1�� L I DESIGN DRIVEN I CLIENT FOCUSED T \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ �� 1 _ D4 �\\�� 3 t 00 Client 2'f E a 1 PHASE LINE - 1.7' 14' Sf II 9 J KEYNOTES (PRIVATE ONSITE) 0cob01, Ir PAVEMENT LEGEND (PRIVATE ONSITE) \ M N „ *PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHOWN BELOW REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL 1. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER 2/C5.10 AND PAVING LEGEND HEREON. SCORING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO iy - I REPORT BY GEODESIGN, INC. DATED XXX X, 2018. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS PATTERN AND DETAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS/SPECIFICATIONS e o \ _ 01THEREIN SHALL BE FOLLOWED. 2. STAIRS WITH HANDRAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS \ © L 3. GUARDRAIL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS CONCRETE SIDEWALK: 4 PCC OVER 2 CRB OVER _ 36'f i \ - _ 11' I co I� COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. 4. RETAINING WALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS I \ I� I REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR © 24 O.C. EACH WAY 2 1 \ -_ - 0 I I 5. PLANTING AREA PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 7 \ EXISTING BUILDING O V / 6. RAISED PLANTER AREA WITH 6" FREEBOARD PER LANDSCAPE & wv I` I STRUCTURAL PLANS i ©` ` ` - PROPOSED BUILDING 36'f ' _ 7. PAD MOUNT ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER WITH PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS PER \\\\ © 30' 30' 1 ABBREVIATIONS ELECTRICAL AND FRANCHISE UTILITY DRAWINGS. COORDINATE VAULT REVEAL WITH PGE TO ACCOMMODATE GRADES SHOWN ON C1.20 OR PAD JI I 60' EDGES TO BE THICKENED AS NECESSARY TO CREATE LEVEL PAD IN SLOPED 1 e \ o i AVE AVENUE ODOT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF _ TRANSPORTATION SURROUNDING PER 12/C5.10 Project `_ `� 1 C COMPACT Al \\\\\\\ \\ I CLO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO POOL CARPOOL (VANPOOL) 8. DEEPENED WALKWAY EDGE PER 11/C5.10 lit DWGDRAWINGRRADIUS9. SITEFURNISHINGPERLANDSCAPEPLANSLAKE OSWEGO Ill I \ CLOSE EXISTING 5 01 _ ST STREET 10. GENERATOR EXHAUST WELL CITY HALL '` ® \ UNDERGROUND GARAGE EV ELECTRIC VEHICLE •lillll I I \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\� I EW EACH WAY SSD STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE 11. TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 5 FOOT WIDTH. CONTRACTOR TO \ ACCESS TO ALLEY • INSURE ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION IS PROVIDED FROM BOTH FALL 0 , 1 (.0 0 STD STANDARD AND ADJACENT DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION WORK, AND THAT PATH IS 380 A AVENUE D \ , M ��\\� � - . I GRN GREEN VEHICLE DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION \ 1- TYP TYPICAL COMPLIANT WITH DISABLED ACCESS CODES. LAKE OSWEGO, OR 1 r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\6\\\\\ - 11� O.C. ON CENTER 97034 J 12. TEMPORARY STRIPING FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 4" WIDE WHITE STRIPES 1 I ei8 O • (10 - \I I © 24" O.C. REMOVE EXISTING CURBING AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE g i ° , i N SMOOTH TRANSITION TO TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 5.5 (1.7. . . N0 3.87' ! T0SS91. II © �� KEYNOTES (PUBLIC OFFSITE) 0 m _ LI li 2 -40. / '� I I . °D ] 10.08' IMI 0 1 tVI 40. VERTICAL CURB WITH 24" MINIMUM SAWCUT PER CLO STD DWG S2-01 _ _ NUM � ► I` 0 --�'- , 41. DRIVEWAY PER CLO STD DWG S4-03. REGRADING OF THE ROADWAY I •` I ASPHALT TO MATCH NEW DESIGN GRADES WILL BE REQUIRED, EITHER 6'f 14'± _ 14' 16' I 1 0 0 00�, CD I� TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT PER PHASE 2 DESIGN IPHASE LINE •!o!a 42. SIDEWALK PER CLO STD DWG S3-01. PAVING PATTERNS PER 12/C5.10 ON El.:.,:.. I0 W 3RD AND 4TH, AND PER 13/C5.10 FOR A AVENUE. PROTECT ALL EXISTING I- ® I i••::.:::, 0 I I„I„I I UTILITIES APPLICABLE.NLESS REMOVETED AND REPLACEE)A LND TRAADJUST C SIGNS.GRADE AS �''``�� I Iol I I 4� w I I .;.0.1 i_ 43. "SIDEWALK ENDS" ROADWAY SIGN ioieCn 3'f I I :;:�:;: 44. UTILITY TRENCHING/BACKFILL AND ASPHALT PATCHING PER CLO STD DWG I I I I I°I` Q • - �� 5 :lol: I01 0 S6-01 AND S6-03. = o \\ .. • . 45. CREATE TEMPORARY TRANSITION TO EXISTING SIDEWALK TO THE ° I •- •• I I I SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. El ° /II I III • gir 411) TAX LOT 95000 10 u) 334 3RD ST I , I o 16'± 25'f 18'± , I 15.5'± _110.5't ° TYP o ° 0 15.5'tCD V 1\ '� - 1 O �D PRO 0 44\ G I NS s6II lLU. `II I 0 91897 r N fD 0 I OREGON 1 77 II -_ FwORY \ • ' 0p _ 10' I O =� I EXPIRES: 12/31/18 -0 _ 20 PUBLIC SANITARY k SEWER EASEMENT I © ALLI RIGHTSIR SERVED )(c-- s - - - _ - THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF _6 _ 1 MACKENZIE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED _ _e---- OR REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, a O I WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION 4 60' , ID ~LA Op 0 r 1 , ° P' ID I REVISIONS: 30' I 30' I 4 ° I I Z0 1 I N� REVISIONS REVISION DELTA L- I » SHIS CLOSING DATE I o 1 SHEET /414$ o e 8.5'± O I [) OD I 1 ao , I I I 1 IIIII o I I I , ( I ) TAX LOT 9700 6r). 1 95 I 0 I _ 3223RDST I J) I Ice d I SHEET TITLE: -n- 1 ICB I er- SITE PLAN 3 0 01 4 PHASE 1 "fc ° I -� III I I L *- *- 0 0_1 kW V ° r ..r ® 1 OH \! OH OH OH N i OH - l OH c OH a�i OH 5'f •- j+H �� 0 - OH I �- O r / A I OTYP i a ° b QS I DRAWN BY: RSO �• 0:M O O .o c, wv� CHECKED BY: GIM EVERGREEN ROAD SHEET XI 0 Co "")k D4I D4 1 c 12'f )(c_ Ti 1231 it * e 0 e :7f‘ F-- I C1 .10 ii -----1-- SITE PLAN - PHASE 1 1.1(:), 20 0 10 20 40 80 JOB NO. 2170184.00 ( IN FEET ) 1 1 inch = 20 ft. o REVISED 10 6 1 30/ SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09 24 18 21 701 840 0\4_DRAWINGS\CIVIL\184-C1.10.DWC SAO 10/26/18 14:11 1:20 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED ra �a O XI WV RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE - - - - WATER VALVE M D4 0 CENTERLINE - - - - WATER VAULT 0 II>>iar rM EASEMENT - - - - - - FIRE HYDRANT Ir - - - - - - - - - - - - LIMITS OF PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS - - - - - IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX Architecture Interiors XI CI w� ---- i, / .2. GAS METER c"" Planning Engineering in cV . . CI ® A AVENUE � TYP � : ' ' TREE o � 0 GAS VALVE � ° I TYP 48 TYP UTILITY POLE l- - - - { I SIGN UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE ANCHOR 1' Of: . . . I O FENCE x x ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER '�"' Portland,OR ,r _ - - _ ' �� ( ICD , , 8.5'f, r • • ' ' ; • . ' �'= ELECTRIC LINE (OVERHEAD) OH ELECTRIC METER El 503.224.9560 .- lit i :.. o_.. . • \ --� ' , �„r�� fii::::10 _... �� ae, ' . . ', C S G 0 0. I •� • Vancouver,WA , �T- .... � ••-•••'.••••' , STORM MANHOLE pD O TRAFFI I NAL P LE 360.695.7879 • I : : �. J I i I I ! 4 f ■■ ■■ . ■:■■ �, ■■ ■ ■■ ■■■■� o I�r.. ■■ ■■ .■�� T -:�■■ ■:I,-[�:lID■■ •'_ ■ _ I I I ! • • • �-. ■■11■■_ 11 ■■_ ■la■■_■■■■ _ IZ ■■II■■ ■� ■■ ■■ -■ ■■ ■■ �. !ICI' CATCH BASIN IIIII ® 41U WA III' 2.5 in N �1. �`� ■: '• e. TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL BOX ll Seattle, III'�I1��(1) 7.5' TYP 23.08 I HI__ ... G 0 206.749.9993 ° , -� -I -I I •1 I CLEANOUT ow o LIGHT POLE I _ 6.8 I I �� scg SIB www.mcknze.com ° i Ji-H '�- -� I- �j I SANITARY MANHOLE 0 O COMMUNICATIONS CABINET El 0 -� ' 16 t 14 f 14 I �� 30 ' -„ 0 a a o -, it • 1 15 f . 13 t o WATER METER 0 h- ER M AC I< E N Z I E I �I I • � • .�,C0 I • ( � �' '„1,, r STREET LIGHT PULL BOX ❑ � ° -L(k_yl , 0_- • _ 1�� DESIGN DRIVEN I CLIENT FOCUSEDN t- 1 I I 1 - i Client °� • • • • • - -I • O � ` 8'± 1 ] �' -. I • 4 i 0® 4'. KEYNOTES (PRIVATE ONSITE) 0O TYPO TYP � PAVEMENT LEGEND (PRIVATE ONSITE) TYP ® • ®I € _ H H H H H N I WV J _ TYP �, a, - 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO EV V EV 1 oi J I I I *PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHOWN BELOW REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL 1. VERTICAL CURB PER 1/C5.10 14 __ c: 0 REPORT BY GEODESIGN INC. DATED XXX X, 2018. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS I J 11.5'� O ' El' - TYP THEREIN HALL B2. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER 2/C5.10 AND PAVING LEGEND HEREON. SCORING ' I 1 9 O PATTERN AND DETAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS/SPECIFICATIONS o 4 - TYP OTYP - _ iLj! - t�,�, N TYP € �, 0 O ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION: 4" AC OVER 9" CRB. OVER 3. ASPHALT PAVEMENT PER PAVING LEGEND HEREON IED - P I COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL � � ° �' TYP 36'fl • ei O O TYP TYP HE O 7 _ L 4, I REQUIREMENTS. 4. CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER PAVING LEGEND HEREON ° - I _ _ __ 9' TYP ■ • eco• II • I CONCRETE PAVEMENT: 7" PCC OVER 9" CRB OVER 5. CONCRETE CROSSWALK PER 3/C5.10 I H H H-�I E'� - 0 • O❑ TYP • - V O COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. 7-1• 6. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL PER 4/C5.10 - 6/C5.10 •• 1 -�- 0 f' j 7 u REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR © 18" 0.C. EACH WAY. • ' ' [1 [1 EL EXISTING BUILDING 7. TRUNCATED DOMES PER 7/C5.10 . ,• TYP o.tc" I _et_ WCO/*/ - - - Lcb_ ► I CONCRETE SIDEWALK: 4 PCC OVER 2 CRB OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. 8. 4" WIDE WHITE PARKING STRIPE 0 I REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR 4 24" O.C. EACH WAY • I O, - 0 3' $a I,�; �_- - II 9. DESIGNATED PARKING STALL SYMBOL AND SIGNAGE PER ABBREVIATIONS I• i •• • I • _ • o I 2" HMAC HEREON Project J 1 CI Co H H • �` �� • II 36 f GRIND AND INLAY OF LEVEL 2, 1/2 DENSE 010. WHITE DIRECTIONAL ARROW • 48 5 5' I 16' _ 24' _0 18.5' 18.5' zz 0 j; 30' I 30' TYP i0 �J >t 2'\ .5, (� I . 11. STAIRS WITH HANDRAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS LAKE OSWEGO 60' 12. GUARDRAIL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS TYP O •-- 4 O 24 CITY HALL / Y C'3 ° �� 1 13. RETAINING WALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS a 1 oIIIGI i ii. 1 I •® - 1 1 ► r `° • O • ED � ABBREVIATIONS 14. BIKE RACK PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 0 12.5'� • ■ 0 TYP I H 6 N��\,I i • I o 15. PROTECTIVE BOLLARD PER 8/C5.10 LAKE OSWEGO, OR O 97034 0 O AVE AVENUE ODOT ORANSPORTAT ON ENT OF 6' '/10'• TYP 4 ® TYP C COMPACT 16. FLUSH CURB PER 9/C5.10 N ,� `�' 9' •TYP II I POOL CARPOOL (VANPOOL) 17. CONCRETE VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER PER 10/C5.10 'a0 I f O TYP O �' �1: , I CLO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO R RADIUS 18. 20' TALL SITE LIGHT ON CONCRETE BASE (DESIGN BUILD) o II. DWG DRAWING ° _ - I i - �I II: ' I ST STREET 19. TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 0 - . Eh -1 EV ELECTRIC VEHICLE / --- o 34 17 • O �`� 1_,. SSD STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE 20. STORMWATER PLANTER PER C1.30 Ms I ` H �. . - _. - �. EW EACH WAY TYP -� 3.5' • 1� s_ . . :. a11� I A. 1 O /� '�',r • I GRN GREEN VEHICLE STD STANDARD 21. PLANTING AREA PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 16'± 14'± 14' 16' i Ix 1 u u u fbil - 0 -M - �I��I� Coo _i . 1 1' t - I -25 97' ..Q z _ -� , - I ° I OC ON CENTER TYP TYPICAL 22. RAISED PLANTER AREA WITH 6" FREEBOARD PER LANDSCAPE & Al_ --- 10.15' • • • -' °' STRUCTURAL PLANS • I HMAC HOT MIX ASPHALT CEMENT 10 - - -- - - -- _O _ 1 4 N 23. RELOCATED BOOK DROP BOX ON 4" THICK CONCRETE PAD REINFORCED rrCD-975; I WITH #4 REBAR AT 18" OC, EW 4 *1 .al. ii. .■__ �y n 20.75' r - 4 W 24. NEW BALLOT DROP BOX (VOTEARMOR MODEL VA-3630) ON 4" THICK ° I- `'`- ! 1 I 1 W I SITE DATA (COMBINED PHASES) CONCRETE PAD REINFORCED WITH #4 REBAR AT 18" OC, EW W I ® I ° 0 I TYP "'" I 5� 1 25. NOT USED tik W ' O TOTAL SITE AREA (SF) 75,500 I CD 10.67 L °° 26. TRANSITIONAL HEIGHT CURB PER C1.20. 1 G-N GRN GRN I ,,,e:pa ° I ° I BUILDING AREA (SF) 18,100 9, 9' 9' "•47:i �' �eaath 27. DEEPENED WALKWAY EDGE PER 11/C5.10 - O I I ° ° 0 % COVER 24% IIi CO • 1S 0 TYP O 0 CC 28. FLAG POLE PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 10cn _-! I I ° CO I I OVERALL LANDSCAPE (SF) 14,900 ° I -� : : • N I 1 29. BIKE PARKING CANOPY PER LANDSCAPE PLANS a o ( ,w 9 TYP - O O OVERALL LANDSCAPE % 20% 30. SITE FURNISHING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS . � 0 TYP o A 11O I - o ° PROJECT AREA (AREA OF DISTURBANCE) (SF) 53,900 31. PARKING RESTRICTION SIGN • TYP 141D TAX LOT 9500 ° il CD TYPO I @ I 32. NOT USED 1� O 1 - ■ O 7Op 1 334 3RD ST ° I ° I I 33. 100LFf RETAINING WALL WITH 42" EXPOSED SCREEN WALL ` I O , 11'f_� 16'f -I 16'±18.5'f 16'fT 25'f 18'f _�r15.5'f _10.5 fl o o ° I 34. 75LFf RETAINING WALL WITH 12" EXPOSED SCREEN WALL ' _ ° al PARKING TABLE (COMBINED PHASES) 110, 51 o I 15.5 t I r PRO * ° ° �� FF i ,� ° ^J J PRE-PROJECT POST-PROJECT PRE/POST DELTA NOTES �5��' 1 NE ��/� R15 - #"/ I STANDARD 33 91897 ° I �/,� I J p� I -. I I ` .• I 130 -50 KEYNOTES (PUBLIC OFFSITE) 0 �`' I 8I 41% (MAX 50%) OF OREGON rn COMPACT 47 W + ° PROVIDED 40. VERTICAL CURB WITH 24" MINIMUM SAWCUT PER CLO STD DWG S2-01 �,9F 11' 10 �o�� / R15' Oe-ri DISABLED 4 5 1 5 HANDICAP SPACES FOR 41. 12" WIDE VERTICAL CURB PER (MODIFIED) CLO STD DWG S2-01 v�RY \ • TYP _ �- • - 101-150 TOTAL SPACES �✓ 10' 1 ® 42. DRIVEWAY PER CLO STD DWG S4-03 EXPIRES: 12/31/18 ID°�° I _ 20' PUBLIC SANITARY 0 O I GREEN 0 7 7 5% OF TOTAL PARKING 43. SIDEWALK PER CLO STD DWG S3-01. PAVING PATTERNS PER 12/C5.10 ON MACKENZIE 2017 ° I e SEWER EASEMENT I EV 0 3 3 2% OF TOTAL PARKING 3RD AND 4TH, AND PER 13/C5.10 FOR A AVENUE. PROTECT ALL EXISTING © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 TYP ° CARPOOL 0 7 7 5% OF TOTAL PARKING UTILITIES (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) AND ADJUST TO GRADE AS THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF _ • -,° - - - - - MACKENZIE APPLICABLE. REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL TRAFFIC SIGNS. E T BS • OR RN IN AO MANNERoEU,ED - 0 o o' O I 0 SECURE 0 23 23 FOR POLICE VEHICLES 44. CONSTRUCT ADA RAMP PER CLO STD DWG S3-01 AND ODOT STD DWGS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION a° 60' 0 ° ° wv OFF-SITE 17 14 -3 NONE REQUIRED RD720-RD769. INSTALL WET SET, YELLOW TRUNCATED DOMES 2 FOOT N I I LONG BY FULL RAMP WIDTH. COVER INSTALLED PANELS IN PROTECTIVE REVISIONS: • 30' I 30' ° I o I I ° u TOTAL 151 139 -12 PLASTIC UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION. SELECT TRUNCATED DOMES FROM ODOT z 1 * I QUALIFIED PRODUCT LIST (QPL). N� REVISIONS REVISION DELTA ° �""'� I I BIKE 0 12 12 Q I S (Q ) » THIS CLOSING DATE a ° �° /\ e 8.5'f o .... .... 45. DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHT PER CLO STD DWG 55-02A ixo SHEET a ° • ' 46. INSTALL 4'X4' TREE WELL. ALIGN WITH SCORING PATTERN. TREE GRATES , WV • AND FRAMES SHALL BE 4-FOOT SQUARE, CHINOOK STYLE, GREY IRON / °�, 0 I ID p D I •. • • I ASTM 148 WITH RUST CONDITIONER BY URBAN ACCESSORIES. INSTALL ' °*• 1 D I I T ° 4° :: '• • • I POWER RECEPTACLE PER CLO STD DWG S10-02. STREET TREE PER , ° 0 I I 4 , S • •' LANDSCAPE PLANS. IIIII � O I 47. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT (4" OF LEVEL 2, 1/2" A I TAX LOT 9700 • y DENSE ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 12" AGGREGATE BASE (3/4"-0) OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE). REPLACE ALL TRAFFIC STRIPING AND SIGNAL ' - ° ) ° o LOOPS IN KIND. • 322 3RD ST 4 I Ice d I 48. GRIND AND INLAY 2" OF LEVEL 2, 1/2" DENSE HMAC. REPLACE ALL • Ics ° TRAFFIC STRIPING IN KIND SHEET TITLE: • 0 I ice I ,0,5 49. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SCORED CONCRETE CROSSWALK IN KIND SITE PLAN 050. RELOCATE EXISTING ROADWAY SIGN PHASE 2 ' c I 4°° 0 1 I ° o I A. a I 51. "SIDEWALK ENDS" ROADWAY SIGN° ...,..2 N„......_.aL _ 0 52. 12" WIDE CONCRETE BAND WITH CONCRETE PAVERS TO MATCH EXISTING ,..*-- ..,, =0 *_ *- # iik 1 ___cti ..... IV o I a O 0 ® O , - - - - ° - to - - °, ° ❑`� 4 ° 5 f I G ° 41 VE OH \4 °• OH G ° ° ° OM ° ° e O • ° ° OH ° OH - OH ° d i'ra ° OH �,��_91 ��__ OH ° ///•H I OH \ OH ° _. �,� Vfilarkiiii... few,1_, e If (43.--..., if re.._,....., I © d �-.>, cE, f %, lnO-.ou J. 1t tti-1.-,4 A P t ,.�' 11 t ,_., a in I i o O D �� DRAWN BY: RSO - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - I - - - -- TI,��? - t - L M b i ��,�vv; CHECKED BY: GIM > pD pD � � i i w/ " 1 © EVERGREEN ROAD I Ixl�� I SHEET p4Nv v0 Co - - (IJ)) e 4k )(C-- D4 c 12'± )k.,_ \ fil :*- -- e 0 ‘ ,.-_,r F-- )0„ ,. 0 �- SITE PLAN - PHASE 2 �C1.11120 0 10 20 40 80 JOB NO. 2170184.00 ( IN FEET ) 1 1 inch = 20 ft. o REVISED 10 6 1 30/ SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09 24 18 21 7 01 8 40 0\4_DRAWINGS\CIVIL\184-C1.11.DWG SAO 10/26/18 14.11 1:20 / \ ' - - \ - - - - / \ // \/ \ /� N / \ / M/ // `\ // \ /� `\ / I \ / \ \ I \ LEGEND 1 ° 1 o 1 I o i 10 1 1 o I Architecture Interiors I \ 1\ / \ / \ I I / Planning Engineering \\ \ / \ / / \\ \ / - - - R.O.W./PROPERTY LINE / / {� A AVE. \`\ / / / o EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, - - - -� -- - - -� PRESERVE AND PROTECT �� , , /- EVERGREEN VINE, 1 GAL., 18" O.C. Portland,OR/jy j / I�1�� /�//�/ i •�� 4 • SEE ARCH FOR TRELLIS STRUCTURE. 503.224.9560 I11 ■p�■� �� / / Vancouver,WA iii\ . /J,i .)%A;- , ---111u■■ /// �, QTY: 30 -. 360.695.7879 ♦ 4$;xi ...p .. , Iiii;a ■Ili■■ ..�I,■■.■■Il.■■.■■11,■■.■.►1.■R�11,...■.r■■.�I■►. �T'�It I I r�� /�I, /� Wig / ■■�—=i■ ■■■III■■ ■■11■■�■■III■■ ■■11■■ ■.II■■ �11■\��i��■■� _I��,:—��III■■ �1■ ■■U �11�111� l `�i/■.��i■■ :::_ ;;l� WA ith// \ '4■■jai Q��1 © / / IJQ ••- EVERGREEN HEDGE SHRUB - 5 GAL. Seattle. . t!Jj !!!! IIII !!aIII "1, jiQ1IIi"ir4IIIIZ_iurPJiuiiiri __ � : OIL\ iHiiO4 HT. 3 O.C.— QTY: 39 www.mcknze.com_„,, ,prWIA. wr cilium! ____�.., ��a ___ _• ICI__ ;IN '"ter ORNAMENTAL TREE - 2" CAL. B&B. M AC I< E N Z I E \ 1111. 7. APV.na.kv-Au Mr""drabriMAI , ,/ 4100 A V V V 1 MEMEM . ° I _ Iii• - _ _ - um Pall I _ I _� Owild O' QTY: 10 DESIGN DRIVEN I CLIENT FOCUSED / « IrWL I`W"� I'W''L 'aka) at mum i mnnm:uunulm.nnnnommimp mnnnm;mummy u m opium l immi n immpn:mmn,imummil umuunp aial WI mn.dimm ■. 1c Client Mi • i \ / • / I'" _____� ,/,!„),' `,' � .- 'Y� i IG RAISED PLANTER TREE - 2" CAL. B&B. il .7 16, .I, �� ..� 2i QTY: 9 ;;;� • / ,, 'L4' // -r iSPECIMEN COLUMNAR CITYOF LAKE OSWEGO t = � I 40 TREE - 3.5" CAL. B&B. \ ) __,,, LTYP. 4. -,t Iwgiito -�� ` O TYP.O 1 I r01 .. , lui, ., _ r>_ QTY: 4 o ,,„, ez- E I r w 7M0 \ / � J PARKING LOT TREE - 2" CAL. B&B � W% _ L3.to , IQTY. 8 -milr / �• �-EN Ir� I tir. li -- �1 �!,7. . AL -16 M I ct. - _ IIE ' ' iar COLUMNAR STREET TREE - 2 CAL. B&B , �•�� QTY: 12 _� `, ■ 1 1 44111rK � 4 0 - `\ ��\\\ 4 STREET TREE - 2" CAL. B&B 1 0 Project $ H \� • QTY: 12 "' LAKE OSWEGO L . CITY HALL • 1 $ 61KINCA • :=- - A ;�; I PHASE 2 �! �� '� �r_ I • EVERGREEN TREE - 10 HT. MIN. ■ TYP.© II j QTY: 1 380 A AVENUE (n ‘11W77 ' " 13 «. LAKE OSWEGO, OR = IIS © 1 - 97034 - 1 - ._,L3.1 oiii \II I PLAZA TREE - 2-1/2" CAL. B&B • / \ _ h _ . :NERATOR QTY: 8 / ° \ � ; I t � . 1 __® TYP.© m \ / r i .1 `- / �� /' ■� j%jj SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING MIX, 12" TOPSOIL • ir;; ;7 I / - i 1 '///`+'ME .... I, ,///// DEPTH, TO BE IRRIGATED WITH PERMANENT, FULLY � -- / /// I AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION. — . - IIIIII■ rzyz '/P'7 ///7 •• /�� m :: / ###r# :- _#-W 7• �1 Y, _�"-k .1`0, O — -- /// L /// i1j//// _/_/ / J_:�- . CO�■ .�. // \ �� ' 't�� ZAWW \��I��I i s I ++++++++ STORMWATER PLANTING, 18" TOPSOIL DEPTH, TO BE I 0 �� fie �i� �' • © - ++++++++ IRRIGATED WITH PERMANENT, FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION. 0 . . . . . . . , \ , • • ///pm 7,77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . +++all s //////j /j/ I I PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE PAVIN - STANDARD GREY. /— N ////j%% V 1111.. ;;7 \ / , ///////; _�. 6 ■■■ ///N.% �• ` / � I veeeo oo,00;;oo. 77 \ / _ _ - \ - PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE PAVING WITH INTEGRAL / N /j / // 1 / \ COLOR DARK GREY. 040 I // \ I I % - I V/' / / \1 I PRECAST CONCRETE BENCH WITH INTEGRAL SKATESTOPS \,, m// 9; I / 1 //, / / \ I - - U / \ \ 0 ///. / I / \ \ AND CONTINUOUS RECESSED INTEGRAL LED STRIP LIGHTING. /�� / \ 1 / \ \ �%% / I o / - 2'X2'X18" HT. / // I a�• , r0 /// 0 \ I //. / - -_ \ I ; o- I QTY: 3 I / � %%/ \ 0%%%% %%% %/� \ N0 I ii / `\ \ / \ y _ /l / �/// \ I / 7%// / 1 .. \\ \ \ \ \ / / / \\ RAISED PLANTER WALL, CMU BASE WITH BASALT STONE \ / / I'/j \ I I 11 // / \ \ \ \ '7 j/ -(�_ I MASONRY VENEER. SEE PLAN FOR LENGTHS AND CIVIL ' , i , ,\\ 1 v// \ 1 i j / o \ 1 \ \ V /�' o ,\ \ I GRADING PLAN FOR HEIGHTS. // \ // I j \ 11 y v ) / i t ° j I \ , g 1 I. ° I I \ /\ - -ri METAL TREE GRATE, 5'X5' SQ. WITH (2) IN-GRADE \ �/ -��/ I PI == ■ UPLIGHTS. \\ /////// \\ /� / ' ��' \1\ \\- - // I/ \ N. - / QTY: 8 / / \� / I CONCRETE PAD, 5'X3.75' ® 6" DEPTH WITH COMPACTED \ \ / / rt r \\ / �%ii�\ / / N o \ \ _ --- - -� \ I BASE AND (1) IN-GRADE FLUSH UPLIGHT. ART EXHIBITS N I // / \% _\ , i 7` - - -- - - - -, / \ PROVIDED BY CITY. I � , /i� �� // yN N \ QTY: 2 / \ - / 1 / \ /\ N / \ / \ \ illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmo METAL CANTILEVER SEATWALL BOLTED TO PLANTER WALLS, ' // \\ \ //� // I �\ / / \\ / - / \\ // \ I ° \\ I WITH INTEGRAL SKATESTOPS AND CONTINUOUS RECESSED I ,� I :/>:*// / \ \ / 1 /'�\ / / \ / \ / \ I \ \ I I INTEGRAL LED STRIP LIGHTING. / \ MACKENZIE 2017 —I ( / / \ 1 !/7 '/ I ° 1 /� \ / / V / \ \ / \ \\ \\ \ / I I BIKE RACK, POWDERCOAT FINISH © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED / I ` �� I \ / / / \ \I \ - EMBED IN FOOTING. BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF / 1 \ '/ \\ / / \ I I / I _ 12h '' + Pol �_ h - I \\ II //I QTY: 6 MAOREREPRODU AND CEDARE INNONYTOAB N USED / ' i 1 BIKE STALL REQUIRED PER 5,000 SF OF BUILDING PER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION II / I / /\ _ - - %/ I `Ni - .- '�* I r. 9 I o o — I / I METAL BOLLARD, 8"0X3' HT, EMBEDIN FOOTING. CITY OF �/ \ \s / l / \ i� \\ I I� ° I\ I / I \ —I- I QTY: 8 REQUIREMENT.K OSWEGO OFFICE* USE ZONING CODE REVISIONS: -I \ \ \ y - -/ I / I I \ \ \ I / / N _\_ N I/ ° \ I \ \ / \ // \ // \ / ,) / I * METAL BOLLARD LIGHT, 8"0X3' HT, EMBED IN FOOTING. • 50% OF BIKE STALLS TO BE COVERED. oQ N REVISIONS REVISION DELTA I � � \I \ /\ V \ // \ I `\ / \ / \ / \ / /I / QTY: 21 5_, THIS CLOSING DATE I / I \ I \ /1 \ / \ / \ / \ \ / / / •• BIKE STALLS SHALL BE WITHIN 50' OF BUILDING ENTRY. �o SHEET // \� -/\0 I I--�\ o- / I \ / \ \\ / \\ / \ // / �/ - PES6 RIAN LIGHT POLE, 12' HT. -\ / \\ \\ / \ / \ 'C \�`/ / �\ N \ / \\\ /� / y\ / z QTY: CALCULATIONS: , \ / \ / � __ - - ' \ / N / \ / i � \ I \ / / / N / \ / `N / / RECESSED STAIR LIGHT. / I �► '` \ I -.- ti�. / I I /� //\\ I \ _ % _ _ "_ _ _ _ y� _- - - - �'`- - I N\ I QTY: 58 58,000 SF BUILDING AREA REQUIRING BIKE PARKING I MD I \ I / / `� // \ 1 1 I // I \ I 58,000 SF / 5,000 SF* = 11.6 TOTAL BIKE SPACES REQUIRED —\/ \ / I ---Co I I \ 1 \ \\ / Iç \\ // 1 // N N I - 12 TOTAL BIKES SPACES (6 RACKS) PROVIDED ON SITE / \ N /'/ \ \ \ I KEYNOTES (8 COVERED SPACES AT LOWER PLAZA NEAR SOUTH ENTRY AND , lo ,- I I \ / \ _ _ // // \/ 4 SPACES AT UPPER PLAZA NEAR NORTH ENTRY) \ / 1 \ // k / \ /\ I 1. RAISED PLANTER WALL WITH BASALT STONE MASONRY / 16 / / \ I\ / I \ fT--- / / I VENEER. SEE LEGEND. *NO BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENT EXISTS FOR MUNICIPAL ZONING 1,-- \ 1 N - - - / - - '� I YN I I USE. THEREFORE THE OFFICE USE CODE REQUIREMENT IS USED SHEET TITLE: / \\ _ - - - _-- - - - - _-, // - - - _ \ r \\ `�(/ \ / 2. FINISH, SEE RCIVIL ETEGRADING FOR HEIGHLANTER WALL WITH T. FORM AS REFERENCE. LANDSCAPE I A I\ o / I \/� ' \ \ �` \ \1 / \\ / \ 3. C.I.P. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WITH BOARD FORM PLAN ` // /, / -// \\ \ / _ _\ i 4 / I FINISH, SEE CIVIL GRADING FOR HEIGHT. TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS / / / N \ `\ �T j-1.\ \ -* \ // \ \N \ I I 4. C.I.P. CONCRETE STAIRS; 14" TREADS, HANDRAILS / 1 �/ / `\ \ \ / / / \�\\ \ / I \ \\ \ I // I WITH BLACK POWDERCOAT FINISH. SEE CIVIL FOR 55 TREES REMOVED (SEE CIVIL TREE REMOVAL PLAN) / / / �\ /\ / / \\ \ / I / \ IGRADING. / j I 1 \ \\ ;�-1 I // / \\ y. - \� - — _ _ / 5. METAL GUARDRAIL, 42" HT, WITH BLACK POWDERCOAT 75 ESTIMATED MITIGATION TREES REQUIRED I / I / / } (14 TO BE 1 , I I r I '� I I /*- ) 1 / I _ -/— �- \ / \ -/ \ �\ FINISH, EMBED INTO RETAINING WALL. NATIVE) I o I ° / _I ° \ I \ I /I , o L I / / \ \ 6. STORMWATER SCUPPER, STAINLESS STEEL FINISH, 12" (TO BE CONFIRMED BY ARBORIST CALCULATIONS) • \ I I\ I / I I �\ / I "` \ I / I WIDE X 18" LONG X 3/8" THICK, BOLTED INTO WALL. 40 TREES PROPOSED ON SITE* \ \ \ 1 ,/ I \ = / cR/ / 7. FLAGPOLE, APPROX. 40' HT, WITH POLE-MOUNTED \ \- - / / \ - \ \ \ \ \ 35 ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTINGS REQUIRED OFFSITE OR \ \ \ / / \ / \ / ,/ \ \ // \ // \ / / LIGHTING. CONCRETE FOOTING PER MANUFACTURER. APPROXIMATE FEE IN-LIEU TREE PAYMENT OF $4,725** TO -___) \ \\ \ / \ / - - \ _ - N �>. - __i/ 8. MAIL AND BALLOT DROP BOXES, SEE CIVIL. THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TREE FUND. I I \\ \\ `\ // /// \�/ // 9. VEHICULAR LIGHT, SEE CIVIL. DRAWN BY: AJ/TJB * 24 TREES PROPOSED WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY DO NOT COUNT ` N ` / / `\EVERGREEN RD/ - - - 10. TRASH ENCLOSURE, SEE CIVIL. TOWARD MITIGATION REQUIREMENT / \N / - / \ / / \ CHECKED BY: TJB — — - — 11. TRANSFORMER, SEE CIVIL. — —T — - - - — \ /-- - - — N ** FEE IN-LIEU PAYMENT BASED ON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION \\ / N\ // // \ / \ /N\ \ -- - -, 12. BIKE SHELTER WITH LIGHTING, SEE ARCH. OF $135 PER TREE. 35 TREES X $135 FEE = $4,725. SHEET N\- -., / \ / / \ // /\; \ \\ // \\ - - PAYMENT PER TREE FEE AMOUNT TO BE CONFIRMED BY CITY. .* % I 1 \ / NN\ 13. CONCRETE PAD, SEE LEGEND. / I I1 \ i) e I I 1° / I �/ \ 14. HARDSCAPE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE CIVIL. 15. MONUMENT ENTRY SIGN - 6' WIDE X 3' HT. X 6" i.__i .ic 20 0 5 20 40 80 THICK C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL WITH BOARD FORM Ci) LAN' DSCAPE PLAN FINISH, STAINLESS STEEL LETTERING AND IN-GRADE UPLIGHT. 1"=20 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. JOB NO. 2170184.00 30% SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09 24 18 EP EP EP I , , , I I I I I I r -ED . ,1111, .. . IN - - - W :di obi' i 1 • , , . STAIR#2 , 1 116 :'• ,,, z '• 1M B ELEVATOR#2 I PjliM • .h a _ _ 0-- la .. t. „\„\„\„. \\\\\\\ ,k 1 I 1 1 <= 1 . .. •, . . 1 1 1 < . 10——— ——1———— * — \ : , . . • ci- • H ,., k.N- 1 1 <= --1: ---- - : 1 1 1 . i • . . -71 *1 (D- . . 10 ' —10 F.. . or . . k POLICE LOBBY ELEVATOR#1 I 101 1 z156,,IN . , • STAIR#1 -. ---y--- ,..41(js____155 • I •• —Ir a . ----. • '----1 . 9111 VETUI LE I . 1‘ • 1 " ' ' -1F—Liku u 11 Tigi,U '1- 10,11', 4- T,UTTi ' (D——— . ' . . ' . '—— ' —— --7 ' ' 1 FiEriF , 1 , - li li , , I cb ,E5 6, ici , C3 0 440 (ID (134 0 -03 Garage Floor Plan 13 First Floor Plan City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M November 1,2018 2170184.00 li T 2.5 T T T O ___, 1 T 2 2.5 3 4 5 0 I .... off I I I I F Iµ L F NORTH / 1 I VESTIBULE ARTS COUNCIL MEETING I BOOKTIOUE 210 ow EXHIBIT SPACE MULTIPURPOSE SALES AREA a LOBBY CORROMOUINDY I,�-_-_- M' 219 I 301 MUNICIPAL -ki,�, \1 - b ICOURT4L. ° 1��I�\ COUNCIL I STAIR#2 I J1 ` CHAMBERS I 209 I IT —" III^\ //IpI I 312 I 1 11 ELEVATOR 'ELEVATOR N21 20: n E a1 II —11 �� E �I µ MEN'S �` IIr MEN'S I�l� RESTROOM ® I RESTROi M _r207 I 300 I ��--JJJ I I 0 ® �®� ® ® �®��\®r� 71 IC -WOMEN'SI , l.r_ _ WOMEN'SI _ ` _ RESTROOM RESTROOM 206 06 -I I CASHIER _ I COUNTER I CD- �I. - - 4 - - CD - It _ _ I I I 306 l_ O \/ T LOBBY RECEPTION ' 201 203 I' 1 LOBBY 11 301 IUTILITIES COUNTER 4 305 J BLDG,ENG,8 �� 202UNTE- R -_ �_ �� _ _ I_ HFPLAN COL, _ (`1 �J 1HI\ / - •N I' CONFERENCE 304 1 I` v 1 I 303 I1,[ 1 I 10___./ \l II µ O T O ELEVATOR#1 ELEVATOR#1 11 L/230,L, C N 3E0RENCE ST STAIR Yi STAIR Mi 231 �- / 350 J I J /, 1 I CONFERENCE CONFERENCE I I 200 I 300 \i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1�l (C,I�J l 1 1 1 1 I (I) (I) 2.5 O (�J 2.5 O e' Second Floor Plan .-i3Third Floor Plan City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M • November 1,2018 2170184.00 Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Carol <caradich@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 2:07 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Nov.6 LORA - City Hall Attachments: city hall.doc To the City Council/LORA Board On Tuesday,November 6, the Council, acting as LORA, is scheduled to vote on the schematic design for the new city hall. As there will be no opportunity for citizen comment before your vote,we submit our comments here. We understand that the elevations found in attachment 2 are still rough and that the design will be refined, however, we believe that more than 'refinement' is needed. The report states that the style is suggestive of northwest regional architecture with thoughtful incorporation of the downtown Lake Oswego style. The styles, clearly defined in Lake Oswego code, are Arts and Crafts, English Tudor, and Oregon Rustic, none of which are in any way reflected in the current design. We believe that the current proposal fails completely to meet both the city's vision of'village character' and the code requirements that define that character. Moreover,this design fails to recognize and be consistent with the precedents set by developments of blocks 136, 137, and 138. Instead, the city hall proposed in this current schematic would create an entirely new look and feel to our unique downtown area, moving it from a 'village' look to an urban look and feel. We ask the Council/LORA to postpone approval of the plan and, instead, require a design that will better meet our code and be a welcome addition to our downtown. David and Carol Radich 669 Ellis Lake Oswego 1 4HJ ATTACHMENT 1 . . . .., . i .,1 ' II IN Iii.I . 1 A ,.._. J _.... ,_ 1 ,. 0�1I II pE II III � ill Ho ,III„I mall i111Aar �. :' �_ _ N. II P 11 I 11414. SW Entry Perspective • City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M November 1,2018 2170184.00 — i . . ... ---.. . . [--.1-' • 11*\\ .:.% ,.,!,... . , P • fp,•.. r _ Ire Milli 11111 '4,- , 4 01 11111111 • ''----;---- -r I • • ,164M MIN - 1 i I . ' !.• . ••I'1 i 1111111111sem' •-• "-•',..--,_ ' -`---- • I I ' .._... ' . • .•.. • L I.. _ .. I - I:.: • ., , . I II 1 - • - ..3Q, ., • ,• 4,• •.,P.;)ir :.* .,•1 •! ! 1 1 ,• ••7 Ardit . - ! . .•• • 1 • . ',. 1' ! , •• ..--, -• - - , _ .1 . 1 • • 1 ___ 1 44 • ' .., ' - , 1111.41:01,1HIF i '' . tk''• ' ..1 „..,1,4,:.i..iiii..., ,.. . • . .. , _. . . . ... ,. : • „I ,.,,v,„ .',..!{;d11,1 •:. . ' I - 7.4 t•A''.. 5— Ta- 111 44: i-- , : _ I - 'I LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL . . g I 11111T r, -.... . . . _ III Ell rtill 111 HI i IIP i ________._ti,. sia_m=ial....__ , I .1,111. 1.1 .1 11111111111r .1! , I Ir. 1.' 11 IIIIIIIIIIIII lik*W1 VIONwarifit - . .. i : • 'l.!:' HI ! . • ';2..! _-.,!..,47•'. '... ..,:*.)::::•..k.''.,'44,-,:',:,.,-: :,-,-,,..,..,..,. .':,. : 7. -. • - .---ili " -- ,;;.- -__7.-_,.--..- _____,.. 411.111r '': :;: .' • ,, . 11.:. :,11i '• • ' Li : 1 . 1 • . ' , .1. - " •--' '•.......,,, •I'' : I I§ 'I i ,'1 l• I ' _-... ''''''""••••+............. .i...M....,,,.j.:L-; ,. ••,. •-.,-...-,c,„?: „ . ,_ ..„‘",.,,. .... _ -... . . Ir. :: lilii•IiIii. ,l.., . , II , l' • , ii' I I.! 1 ,. I:: ,:' ' "'''''••••.................................... , .. ,ft,....0.0......,- • • nomm -- NW Entry Perspective Lake Oswego City Hall M City of Lake Oswego • 2170184.00 November 1,2018 elm op . lti4 I 4? sr L- I .011M i 4111111fr- Ilk . i 1 -. � a III� � Ili i 1II ;F! I II I 417..v...._ 1 1 1 _....„..,i-.---. ...- 1 _ L te r ' i A 1 11 _ N. P-,.-i 1 1 '_ ` �_- — '�' III 1 I� I 1' �! I 'I �� ii �'I III III. ,iIP I' 1100,14011 1 1 ate- I', I ! II„ -- 1 _ I I LAZE OSWE�GO CITY F I.I - _�_ - _ _ _ � I� ' ii� II'IIIiIII II�01,i — -_ _ _ 1; • I ;, �',I�I � ,I�I »I t :�. t "` --- it 4id ' r�iiiinr�lr�h ,1 1, I II �.i tv - ` ', , ,ii, r �rll� I i!!N!!i!!i3!!ll ,, I. ' 'I .' ,��i -- .r�'- III i' i ' i �s -",M F II I� 1 I I fIii I, A/mii s 1, I;�I ,1 ! 4,1= ' . I ;il, i '.i . w _ -'--_-.1 ,Il 1 , III I 'I i II C, i 1 I ii I , IP"' 41 I 1 --- I I I ,. �. I 17 I I i in ., A a ! - ;„�a ,1 1 i II; l IIM■ NE Corner Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M . November 1,2018 2170184.00 I . .. , . , . . , ___-------- • ' I ----- .. --Ill • 1 .. ,\'‘ '' \ ••• ....-.."'. • , ..., ..41- II . . . . .4 ! _—,----1---- Ill .1 011111 .. • F \ --- I : , • 1 11111 O. ,.-- . . • . : . . . — - . . I o' . ,...., ! or im III , 1 _...: ... . -.4. 4 ,. . % ' . IIIII 11101111111.11.1 ' ' I ' , ..---„, E., . ... . . -- - - - -- -, "f14/r- ----i .... . "quir........ . ,=... .inordi . • ''.1 • r , ...t-' ._.. - • . k r.- --IOW .. , .. 1 il 1 , -..a• • .. , _ _ ----__ 1. -- • • I IIIII 'h'i _ • '-----' . ---- -1171 MI .1,,• .;II.: ,ip,-.'1.-.0- --- . l'ii ': ''''''1• ....:41''. . , - i ;!.4....: .. .,.., .,,..... , .. : .2. • - '•-' 2 1 ..,, . 1 . /...„...„.v.,:::......., . . .,.. ..1.tri, ...: . .). .1 , :.,. ..,. .,,, ,. .... . , . ... . : „.1...„:-41.fel , , _..._... - 4.4.:„. • i r..„. .1. ,......,.:r? .. • ... .. : • . ..,,, •••-:',N, . ,,, ,. • 1..1 ,, , ., - . ... ... .. • .m. i_ , ._ .. . .•_. ,• -,_ .i-r ,.; , ,..J.1 • ,,,,4,...„.,,. !... . 4,,,,1„..• . 1 , . 1 . • ,,,,,• „ ,.., .. „ --: ,,t.. - • . . ,. • • .-,..:_.„,„,-„,..:;_ - 1 ,-.... ii • .-• , .. . .7..; -t '-,:.- . ;17 -1( _.:.-,:. ' 11 '''. - t . ...,„.4...‘._'. : .r, . , t . . ,.,,,_. . ,.•,.. ,. ,r• . ..--„, ... ...-. ,.7„,'-' .- i 1 i'''. fi:...;' : I 11,1142-,-!; • • :? rt !f- ..,..0.- ' -e •. ,4).....m...1,-, )i g.I.,.• .. .._..,..2,.. .777. 71:,r, _ -• ,iir--_:: • -- I 4, r ' IP' . -•••,_.;:-.'e',___L- - --,,. • - ': , . . I. .• . —- . „, , . f. ,..A• - ,-. •1111 —7 - 11 -1 ., ,--,, . :;-.11....1..-- .•, il.'. -- 1 1. 4. 1 ..I„ - ..( - . - - '''' - IF . • 1 ---./EmnIMMIIIMIN1111111 -.1 -- -1 . .,..r. . •, ,, . . ./'-' .. ,. . .. ..h1 . .... 0 . . ... .4 ..--. -, . • ,:.. '' I .: 1 1+ .4 -.._ . -• •i . , • • ..._ ' ' . - . ,I..4:,).....1. . •„:4 .. .1 ...„—.. _ IC% •• ,, , ir4'' . ' • . , " - ,• ',k I,' 1 II ^}1 . ' 1 '7L--.. w . p• f. - " -or SE Corner Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall I1 • November 1,2018 2170184.00 . •• __.,i.,,,7,,„,,,,.., — — --1 -1--- i 7.....,..__ ____..---__._ . - UTfl c �II I'Il'1..„- TV..qiil..'1, . ,•-.7:::..74::::-41L-7----.•-,-...7,..........., .., . . .....7 . , . , ,, 1 1 . ., SS - - 11 ,. : ' L:.''.'1' \:\it 14i -1 r# ` y . ..• . ,.... • of � v.� � Ill ull��l I f II I i.- . it 5 1 i , 4 : - - - - \_ 1. 1 .,.4, } .-ral;rigeniii% ------. . ., ----_.... r c..„ • .... •• . . ,.........,. - .• . ,.....__.. . ..._. . • • .._ 2..._. ----, x ,.._.....,„,,„.. , . vv..' ,. .---,..; ;! ,..t.. : • .' . . -- --- --•-•--.._ J . r.� f NW Aerial Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall M • November 1,2018 2170184.00 __.J.. - N _ iy ►� — 4, MINN -......lt, „. J.e, ill _, .. * ! di 0. 1 F i y L�. : JL ' + . ., , • - .•.., • ,i,cA.....,, ''••„_:,:...,.. - - - . / 1 •1 i . - — *-, ''' ' I I ll ifil 111 , , ,,,,,,, ,„„i !„,„ ,•. .,,.. , , .. . ••..„,..„_,.....,,:,.. ..,.... .. ,„.,.„. •. •.,..s._ ..,.... t.., ...,. • , ..di• l'-•,P'--; Oili. _r'''''. • '' --z•-•• ,:r-t...........4. •/,, , a ' "•-• •11 ‘ --.7':-:., ..- _— -4,1• -1. .._ '-'-• :'-0111"1'- 4;:t"r .....-- 10 _._.....• _..e« _. 11'11 1 i,, ?.• • • II'9.I•II II[II1LI.,. .-. it 1 i i_ -•.-' �. i III. f -�.- i s ~ J illlI _~ •r , 111,..' r -••• _ - ,.,.4.4414141‘.' 4- Itioikt_ . f yc_ . . Z .. :444:;.,. ,..?.: „ IIW '-:.t." —- ''' k //4:'7•• 1 "filk , 4y. 4 # _\V . 4 1. 4° • Fes/ *i g r e Y SW Aerial Perspective City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall November 1,2018 2170184.00 M . �® ATTACHMENT 2 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED Da N © N RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE - - - - WATER VALVE D4 0 CENTERLINE - - - - WATER VAULT 0 EASEMENT - - - - - - - FIRE HYDRANT - 0 --� -e '- - - - - / - - - T - - - PHASE LINE IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX Architecture Interiors �• / GAS METER cM Planning Engineering • A AVENUE •TYP TREE o 0* GAS VALVE D4 UTILITY POLE ` , I r SIGN _0- _0- UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE ANCHOR `n I FENCE x x ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER TAM i< Portland,OR ' , ,..'` ` ELECTRIC LINE (OVERHEAD) OH ELECTRIC METER El 503.224.9560 \MW OD I p p 8.5 f o QD o o O 0 I �� _�, Vancouver,WA 1GP •""'� "" O / STORM MANHOLE OD O I TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE ° 360.695.7879 O O 0 ►+ +I 0 ►�i ° _, 0 ° • ° !,. N, w '" 0 III 00 I I CATCH BASIN Mil ® 411D TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL BOX Seattle,WA +L - / MD 1 CLEANOUT ocO o LIGHT POLE * # 0__0-E 206.749.9993 www.mcknze.com o ❑ ❑ 040 : 9.12' �6.79 _ SANITARY MANHOLE SQ O COMMUNICATIONS CABINET cR 16 t 14 f 14' 404,�, li ��"� 15 t 13 f STREET LIGHT PULL BOX ER o .'?: +o'ii!ee:eeeeeeee , , 4 - o WATER METER wM MACI< ENZI E_ r a DESIGN DRIVEN I CLIENT FOCUSED i=f ' D4 I \\\‘\�� 2'± 3,t •\ _ - 00I ' Client 1.7' 14'f 1- ] -, PHASE LINE - \ ! ® 7 II 8'f \ \ f \ \ 4 e p \ i J KEYNOTES (PRIVATE ONSITE) 0 \ _,« ! 1 « M « « ' 1 rr ,,)„, PAVEMENT LEGEND (PRIVATE ONSITE) \ \ I CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO _ \ I I *PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHOWN BELOW REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL 1. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER 2/C5.10 AND PAVING LEGEND HEREON. SCORING �� \ I REPORT BY GEODESIGN, INC. DATED XXX X, 2018. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS PATTERN AND DETAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS/SPECIFICATIONS ;, • I p \ \ p p - THEREIN SHALL BE FOLLOWED. 0 . 2. STAIRS WITH HANDRAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS �` \ \ I i I CONCRETE SIDEWALK: 4" PCC OVER 2" CRB OVER 3. GUARDRAIL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 36'± \ \ 11' COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. 4. RETAINING WALL PER STRUCTURAL PLANS © � I \ \ - 21- I I I I REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR © 24" O.C. EACH WAY =R \ \ I \ \ __ H © i I I 5. PLANTING AREA PER LANDSCAPE PLANS EXISTING BUILDING \ 6. RAISED PLANTER AREA WITH 6" FREEBOARD PER LANDSCAPE & STRUCTURAL PLANS AI i \ \ _, PROPOSED BUILDING 36I - 7. PAD MOUNT ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER WITH PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS PER \ \ L - e. 30' 30' \\\� \ © ABBREVIATIONS ELECTRICAL AND FRANCHISE UTILITY DRAWINGS. COORDINATE VAULT 11 REVEAL WITH PGE TO ACCOMMODATE GRADES SHOWN ON C1.20 OR PAD o \ \ o 60 i AVE AVENUE ODOT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDGES TO BE THICKENED AS NECESSARY TO CREATE LEVEL PAD IN SLOPED -. `. "' C COMPACT TRANSPORTATION SURROUNDING PER 12/C5.10 Project �\\\\\\\ \ \\ © I POOL CARPOOL (VANPOOL) 8. DEEPENED WALKWAY EDGE PER 11/C5.10 \ = ® CLO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO •°I 11 / \ DWG DRAWING R RADIUS 9. SITE FURNISHING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS LAKE OSWEGO PPI \ CLOSE EXISTING CO I ST STREET 10. GENERATOR EXHAUST WELL CITY HALL ® \ 0 = EV ELECTRIC VEHICLE it UNDERGROUND GARAGE u I I \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I SSD STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE 11. TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 5 FOOT WIDTH. CONTRACTOR TO \ ACCESS TO ALLEY I � EW EACH WAY INSURE ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION IS PROVIDED FROM BOTH FALL o STD STANDARD AND ADJACENT DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION WORK, AND THAT PATH IS 380 A AVENUE p 0 \ -« « « ,� �� I GRN GREEN VEHICLE / LAKE OSWEGO, OR O \ \ �� 1 /II O.C. ON CENTER TYP TYPICAL COMPLIANT WITH DISABLED ACCESS CODES. LAKE I7034 I CoO , 12. TEMPORARY STRIPING FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. 4" WIDE WHITE STRIPES / 0 I © 24" O.C. REMOVE EXISTING CURBING AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ° 5 5' • •i6: N J SMOOTH TRANSITION TO TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS o 3.87' `� , _1 14 p ° I CO C11 ITO SSD i KEYNOTES (PUBLIC OFFSITE) 0 ® / 3'f/ _ - ,au + - • • - -,--. .�.--. . •Q':i...., f -St"rrt • -- f; L - - -- 2'- , 'b / V// I _ _ � I ® ' ��, 40. VERTICAL CURB WITH 24" MINIMUM SAWCUT PER CLO STD DWG S2-01 � IIIII■I � 10.08 � I 0 e�°{, I - - --LI -� - _ �I41. DRIVEWAY PER CLO STD DWG S4-03. REGRADING OF THE ROADWAY , � ASPHALT TO MATCH NEW DESIGN GRADES WILL BE REQUIRED, EITHER ' ' I' VOQ ©Q 0 TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT PER PHASE 2 DESIGN 16 t 14 f 14' 16 -- I PHASE LINEMA krj 42. SIDEWALK PER CLO STD DWG S3-01. PAVING PATTERNS PER 12/C5.10 ON -) CD d 0 3RD AND 4TH, AND PER 13/C5.10 FOR A AVENUE. PROTECT ALL EXISTING I- MI I I-- � W I UTILITIES (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) AND ADJUST TO GRADE AS I I °�°�` 41) Ight I PA 0 0 APPLICABLE. REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL TRAFFIC SIGNS. 10 WW I I I M I I- 43. "SIDEWALK ENDS" ROADWAY SIGN 3'f I I °�°�, 44. UTILITY TRENCHING/BACKFILL AND ASPHALT PATCHING PER CLO STD DWG • (n )ik3* ® I I `: Q 56-01 AND S6-03. j "" I eAk- C o�� I0 ((� I 45. CREATE TEMPORARY TRANSITION TO EXISTING SIDEWALK TO THE 101" _,I- r,�, I SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR. E 4 e_. /. or, 2 ior,, e0 TAX LOT 9500 0 a 01 cn I / 334 3RD ST I I o 16'± 25'± -i- 18'± -I- 15.5'± -II10.5'± p p I TYP coI 1 ° 0 15.5'± I�-- CID , i - w * 1 I 0 D © 4,\(-_,G 1 NNE ) 1 * 0 \ e , FF' s%III I jIll t91897 I N L I OREGON W0 �9�94' 10,2 .� 4� ��_ 0 ID 10' 0 I I i EXPIRES: 12/31/18 -� I 20' PUBLIC SANITARY b ,,_,A, p - SEWER EASEMENT I © ALLY R GHTSIRESERVED THESE DRAWINGSC ADRIE THE PROAPNERTY OF - - -- " Ljt''- - - MACKENZIE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED H 0 4D----- 0 WIOROU P PRIIOREWRINTTENYPERMINSSION60 O O i _I' 30' I 30' I e ° I I I Z r1 ID REVISIONS: I N1 REVISIONS REVISION DELTA II e 8 5'f O > I SHIS CLOSING DATE ct SHEET Aitit o I 0 D4 I * I I I I IIIII p p , ( ) TAX LOT 9700 ii 3223RDST I , 1 k›. ,=P I ics c I SHEET TITLE: I I CB I e,-- SITE PLAN 0 nm � PHASE 1 4 ,...y„ 0 , , , -� III Op I I I L - a 0 *- *- -L 0 0 V r kW O * ..,* -0 • - I I ic"-K O p - p - - - O - - - - 1' OH OH \! OH OH OH i at OH OH r•ED - I �S! OH 5'- •- /j•H -LI 0 - OH Op I In co 1 I 1 1 b O I •TYP i I DRAWN BY: RSO / _ _ _ _ _ �, b I lo - � - © M `° b A c^, w- CHECKED BY: GIM © EVERGREEN ROAD KA, SHEET �z co XI 0 © 4vi'l 1 c- 12't T a . e 0 e C1 .10 SITE PLAN - PHASE 1 0 \ a1io 20 0 10 20 40 80 JOB NO. 2170184.00 ( IN FEET ) 1 1 inch = 20 ft. o REVISED 10 6 1 30/ SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09 24 18 21 701 840 0\4_DRAWINGS\CIVIL\184-C1.10.DWG SAO 10/26/18 14:11 1:20 LEGEND EXISTING p�OpOSED EXISTING p�OpOSED I I RIGHT OF WAY/PROPERTY LINE - - - - WATE� VALVE � CENTE�LINE - - - - WATE� VAULT � � EASEMENT - - - - - - - - - - FI�E HYD�ANT � - - -- �- - ---- -� �---� - `� - -- - -� - �-� - � - - - - - - - LIMITS OF PHASE 1 IMp�tOVEMENTS � � � � � I��IGATION CONT�OL �OX Architecture Interiors � � � � GAS METER Planning Engineering _ ;I, 49 TYP 48 � TYP 46 41 52 A AVENUE � TYP 48 49 TREE GAS VALVE � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ UTILITY pOLE - � � � SIGN � UTILITY POLE GUY WIRE ANCHOR __ � � � � I � - - - - - - - - - - - I l I FENCE " " ELECTRICAL T�ANSFORME� Portland,OR I44 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - .................. ............................................ .................................. - - - - - - - - - - - _ � 503.224.9560 � :; , � 8.5 f � . . e_ ` � -.. • ELECTRIC LINE (OVERHEAb) ELECT�tIC METE� Vancouver,WA ° a ` [�Ill.....i.r� . / -- - , . _ _ � = . - . -- - 44 \ � I � STORM MANHOLE O � T�AFFIC SIGNAL pOLE 360.695.7879 a � a a a 4 f . �, � � . • �� . , `� 12.5 � '� � CATCH BASIN � � TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL �OX Seattle,WA :. TYP 22 11 7,5' �� TYP � 23.08' N TYP 46 43 �- : � 206.749.9993 :: r -�i � � ��-� � � � � � � � �� _�j� � ' o � ❑�J � _ . .,6 8, __ __ ._ -- ------- -- -- ------- -- -- ----- I � CLEANOUT LIGHT pOLE www.mcknze.com � SANITARY MANHOLE O COMMUNICATIONS CABINET � J L-----=� �=-- ' 16'f 14'f � 14' , 11 • � • • 22 • -- 30 �� ---'. '. ,.---.,. ,. _ �I • � 15't 13'f i WATER METER � M AC I< E N Z I E STREET LIGHT PULL �OX � I I N L(J ��-��-J � i q�� I I I DESIGN DRIVEN I CLIENT FOCUSED I I ' � � i 4'f 11' ' ��'L---=-� -___--___ _=_��=uI I �I ❑ � � I � Client � ,�- • - `n • - • - • - • -J � 2 ' i �4'f � 1 i�_y� � �'f ' � - - - a � � - � 8 t � � ] � � 14 - ii � \� a i � 22 4 �� - i � I ' � ' KEYNOTES CPRIVATE ONSITE) # �� i 46 ; 43 21' � � rY 9 15 TYP 19 _ ;� � � � PAVEMENT LEGEND (PRIVATE ON51TE) o ! TYP �I - � TYP � = ' 46 � � CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO � � �� , EV V EV L� � TYP � I *PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHOWN �ELOW REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL 1. VERTICAL CURB PER 1/C5.10 I ;� i 10 � i �� I � I REPORT BY GEODESIGN, INC. DATED XXX X, 2018. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS 2. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER 2 C5.10 AND PAVING LEGEND HEREON. SCORING � I , 11.5' � � w g' 26 I �I I ; I THEREIN SHALL BE FOLLOWED. PATTERN AND DETAIL PER ANDSCAPE PLANS/SPECIFICATIONS � 4 TYP � 3 TYP TYP � ' �I 40 47 � ASpHALT PAVEMENT SECTION: 4" AC OVER 9" CR�. OVE�Z � I � � `y 24 , � II � � I � COMPACTEb SU�GRAbE pE�Z GEOTECHNICAL 3. ASPHALT PAVEMENT PER PAVING LEGEND HEREON I 3 6 f % � � 23 18 1 TYP 7YP � 2 2 �� i I�' 4�T Y P � I �EQUIREMENTS. 4. CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER PAVING LEGEND HEREON � 9 TYP I � I I � II _ I � • • 15 , • � � �I � � � CONCRETE PAVEMENT: 7" PCC OVER 9" CR� OVE� 5. CONCRETE CROSSWALK PER 3/C5.10 I __ .._ ,,, � 6 TYP ❑ li � COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL �EQUI�EMENTS. 6. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL PER 4/C5.10 - 6/C5.10 , •� _ 8 5 � � i ;, 30 'I � REINFORCE WITH #4 RE�AR C� 18 O.C. EACH WAY. � � � 7. TRUNCATED DOMES PER 7 C5.10 � � � TYP I I I EXISTING BUILDING � ' ;- � � CONCRETE SIbEWALK: 4" pCC OVE� 2" C�� OVER � . �- ' 6 � , ' �I ❑ � � � COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. 8. 4" WIDE WHITE PARKING STRIPE I I ".� 4 , �° 5' 20.76' I� 45 � I � � REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR C� 24" O.C. EACH WAY � 45 , 3 � � I � 9. DESIGNATED PARKING STALL SYMBOL AND SIGNAGE PER ABBREVIATIONS ';F � � . , 10 � � � li � � � HEREON I I `� j � , � , , 6 10 �� ;I 36'f � GRIND ANb INLAY 2" OF LEVEL 2, 1/2" DENSE HMAC 10. WHITE DIRECTIONAL ARROW Project I 48 , 16 24 18.5 18.5 z II �� 30' � 30' � I� 11. STAIRS WITH HANDRAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS LAKE OSWEGO TYP i 40 5 5 12. GUARDRAIL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS � , � I �J � 2.5 , � � i TYP / i Z 9 TY 18 � 24' i ' 6 0' I CITY HALL � � 1 3. R E T A I N I N G W A L L P E R S T R U C T U R A L P L A N S � � il �__ � 21 � • • 3 3 ' �;� • � I A B B R E V I A T I O N S 14. BIKE RACK PER LANDSCAPE PLANS i 380 A AVENUE 12.5' 1 TYP � �I � I 15. PROTECTIVE BOLLARD PER 8/C5.10 LAKE OSWEQO, OR I � 10 ~ �' � � AVE AVENUE ODOT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF 97� �� +I � 6' 10' 21 I � TRANSPORTATION 16. FLUSH CURB PER 9/C5.10 � � TYP � TYP g' 3 TYP !I � C COMPACT I , N N I \ I POOL CARPOOL (VANPOOL) 17. CONCRETE VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER PER 10/C5.10 I � � � I � g TYP �� 11 CLO CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO � yG � O I �- � �I I I DWG DRAWING R RADIUS 18. 20 TALL SITE LIGHT ON CONCRETE BASE (DESIGN BUILD) �'{' ! i' �� ` I II 'I� �I I � � ST STREET 19. TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ' �I,' i 2 II � EV ELECTRIC VEHICLE � 46 � o � 34 17 • � 14 � _ � � I � EW EACH WAY SSD STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE 20. STORMWATER PLANTER PER C1.30 ------ ------ ------------__------�------ ------ � � TYP � � 31 3.5' � I STD STANDARD 21. PLANTING AREA PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 16't 14' � 14' 16' i 22 �I I 29 , I I I i � GRN GREEN VEHICLE TYP TYPICAL 22. RAISED PLANTER AREA WITH 6" FREEBOARD PER LANDSCAPE & � i � 25.97 _ _ � � OC ON CENTER � � � �� STRUCTURAL PLANS I �� 10.15' • � • � ' ' -' � I I HMAC HOT MIX ASPHALT CEMENT �� ' I � 23. RELOCATED BOOK DROP BOX ON 4" THICK CONCRETE PAD REINFORCED � � �_ -- -_- -- -- - O I � -��- -�- " 22 � ��J 4 3 � 13 � 9 52� � 2� (� � � � 27 � � WITH #4 REBAR AT 18" OC, EW � � , n 20.75' r I I W � 24. NEW BALLOT DROP BOX (VOTEARMOR MODEL VA-3630) ON 4" THICK I ~ I �' ! 21 � I � W I I SITE DATA (COMBINED PHA5E5) CONCRETE PAD REINFORCED WITH #4 REBAR AT 18 OC, EW W � � � , �� 9 6 I 7YP � I � � I 25. NOT USED � � 45 � 10.67' � N RN GRN I 15 � � � TOTAL SITE AREA (SF) 75,500 26. TRANSITIONAL HEIGHT CURB PER C1.20. � i , � , , � I BUILDING AREA (SF) 18,100 � I '�? ; w G � _I�I_ g _I- g _,I � I � Q I 27. DEEPENED WALKWAY EDGE PER 11/C5.10 � a I- o i 46 --a y M g TYP $ 16 I I I � � � � COVER 24� 28. FLAG POLE PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS �" � � ! i � 19 N � � I I I I ('7 � I O V E R A L L L A N DSC A P E (S F) 1 4,900 2g, gIKE PARKING CANOPY PER LANDSCAPE PLANS � � � I 9' TYP O � I � � OVERALL LANDSCAPE � 20% ! 40 �� TYP � I 30. SITE FURNISHING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS � TYP 13 � TAX LOT 9500 I i PROJECT AREA (AREA OF bISTURBANCE) (SF) 53,900 31. PARKING RESTRICTION SIGN � �� _ _ _ C° TYP 9 � 13 i � � � 32. NOT USED - - 1--- � �s 334 3RD ST � � � � 33. 100LFf RETAINING WALL WITH 42" EXPOSED SCREEN WALL � � I I 50 I 11't 16'f 18.5'f 16'f 25'f 18'f Ir15.5'f 10.5'fl i � I � 34. 75LFf RETAINING WALL WITH 12" EXPOSED SCREEN WALL I 51 , ' 15.5�t ,� � � , 4� ; PARKING TABLE (COMBINED PHASES) i � I~-� - - � � ; � � _ ,��D PROFFss � � � � PRE-PROJECT POST PROJECT PRE/POST DELTA NOTES g �I N / I _ _ J � � �` � � � I � �G ��s�as7�� r R15 � � � STANDARD 33 � � J � � � � KEYNOTES (PUBLIC OFFSITE) # I � N I O �_ � I � I 130 -50 41� (MAX 50�) OF OREGON rn � � � � COMPACT 47 •� � � I I PROVIDED 40. VERTICAL CURB WITH 24" MINIMUM SAWCUT PER CLO STD DWG S2-01 �,9F fV io,�o�`�O R15' 9 � � DISABLED 4 5 1 5 HANDICAP SPACES FOR 41. 12" WIDE VERTICAL CURB PER (MODIFIED) CLO STD DWG S2-01 ��RY � • � I TYP 10, � � i � i 101-150 TOTAL SPACES 42. DRIVEWAY PER CLO STD DWG S4-03 EXPIRES: 12/31/18 � I � � �� 20' PUBLIC SANITARY ! I � � GREEN 0 7 7 5% OF TOTAL PARKING 43. SIDEWALK PER CLO STD DWG S3-01. PAVING PATTERNS PER 12/C5.10 ON MACKENZIE 2017 � �I , � � o SEWER EASEMENT � / � EV 0 3 3 2% OF TOTAL PARKING 3RD AND 4TH, AND PER 13/C5.10 FOR A AVENUE. PROTECT ALL EXISTING � ALL RIGHTS RESERVED < � 1 TYP � � CARPOOL 0 7 7 5� OF TOTAL PARKING UTILITIES (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) AND ADJUST TO GRADE AS THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF � _ _ ^ _ _ � _ r- � _ _ __' _ __ I �� APPLICABLE. REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL TRAFFIC SIGNS. MACKENZIE AND ARE NOT TO BE USED I I OR REPRODUCED ]N ANY MANNER, � � SECURE 0 23 23 FOR POLICE VEHICLES 44. CONSTRUCT ADA RAMP PER CLO STD DWG S3-01 AND ODOT STD DWGS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION I 60' � � RD720-RD769. INSTALL WET SET, YELLOW TRUNCATED DOMES 2 FOOT �- � � OFF-SITE 17 14 -3 NONE REQUIRED REVISIONS: � ° LONG BY FULL RAMP WIDTH. COVER INSTALLED PANELS IN PROTECTIVE � 30' 30' � o � ,', ' � I I I TOTAL 151 139 -12 PLASTIC UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION. SELECT TRUNCATED DOMES FROM ODOT z , � � � � I � I Q �2 �2 w w THIS CLOSING DATE � BIKE QUALIFIED PRODUCT LIST (QPL). �� REVISIONS REVISION DELTA j 8.5 f ,�� 45. DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHT PER CLO STD DWG S5-02A �o S H E E T a I � I I 46. INSTALL 4'X4' TREE WELL_ALIGN WITH SCORING PATTERN. TREE GRATES � � � AND FRAMES SHALL BE 4 FOOT SQUARE, CHINOOK STYLE, GREY IRON I � I � � I � ASTM 148 WITH RUST CONDITIONER BY URBAN ACCESSORIES. INSTALL �1 I I I � POWER RECEPTACLE PER CLO STD DWG S10-02. STREET TREE PER I � °p+ � � � i � LANDSCAPE PLANS. � ° � i � � 47. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT (4" OF LEVEL 2, 1/2" � � DENSE ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 12" AGGREGATE BASE (3/4"-0) OVER , TAX LOT 9700 � � COMPACTED SUBGRADE). REPLACE ALL TRAFFIC STRIPING AND SIGNAL I � � LOOPS IN KIND. I I n I 322 3RD ST I i � � 48. GRIND AND INLAY 2" OF LEVEL 2, 1/2" DENSE HMAC. REPLACE ALL , � I l� � I I I � I TRAFFIC STRIPING IN KIND SHEET TITLE. O .� � I � 49. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SCORED CONCRETE CROSSWALK IN KIND SITE PLAN � I I I 50. RELOCATE EXISTING ROADWAY SIGN PHASE 2 i � � 47 I 51. "SIDEWALK ENDS" ROADWAY SIGN I I I� � � � I I � O � I � 52. 12" WIDE CONCRETE BAND WITH CONCRETE PAVERS TO MATCH EXISTING I I � I I � � _ '� � � I d I � � ..y � � � _� �� > ��I I s �� / 1 N N 5't / I \ Y " OH �� OM a e e Oe � , ° OH �.1.�+ � OH ` Y \ � �JG OH �� J�f `9k� � // i \� I �f�l Ir�l� �f�l ° < � � r - - - - - - - - - - - � � d I I \\ O � � I I \ \ - I � � > � � I � ; 48 � i � � DRAWN BY: RSO - - - - - - - � - � - - ---- - - - - - - �----- - -- -----J---------- ------� M � I j -- o , � , CHECKED BY: GIM " EVERGREEN ROAD ' ; ' ; � � SHEET � � � J � I ° I �2'f T/ � � �� o� �� I . 1 SITE PLAN - PHASE 2 �.� 20 0 10 20 40 80 JOB N0. 2170184.00 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. o REVISED 10 6 1 30/ SCHEMATIC DESIGN 09 24 18 21 7 01 8400\4_DRAWINGS\CIVIL\184-C1.11.DWG SAO 10/26/1S 14:11 1:20 ATTACHMENT 3 � � 2.5 � � � � � � 2.5 � � � � i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i � �� F .._. . ._..; . . ...... . .._ . ., .... . .:,....� .:.�_. . ......, , ....,. .....:. , � - F �-- -� I � ....� � .._... _.,.I.... ..._I....... ........ I_:........ ..... _. .:. �I � .. .. ..,,... ,; � F �I . . . . .. . _ .: ........ . _. .. ,,.::.. _' F _ .._. _ . _ . _. _ .. ._ ..._ ,: i I --='s -- -- STAIR#2 ��6 ELEVATOR#] � I it] � � r_ ______� _. � � � . � �I i � �I � � � � � � �� I � � I I I,' � � � � I � I I I= o---; ---I---- — ------- °--� °� -�° � � � � � I I I � � � � � �I� � � � I� I�`: I I I I' � � � � - - - - - - - � -�--, --- -- � � - -I - - - � �:_�__-- -___� fl � � � � � � --- - ' --- I I I I ====== ====� , . � � � � � �� _____ �====i � � I I I � I I I -;---- ---__1 I I I I I I 4 F I ______.��'F__ J I I � I - - --__; � � � � � �`. - r====" B I I - I - - - I - - - - - B �r - - -� � � POLICELOBBV ELEVATOR#1 101 156 I o I I Q /� STAIRkt I I �� 155 .: I I ____ ��. ___y � � I ====,y I I ---- 911VESTIBULE ---- —— I I 100 ; n II o- ' . : .. :,..__� �— I _ _ _ _ �, —� I �� I I I I I I I I 1� •,LL� 2'S �3 4� � b 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 � � � � � -� Garage Floor Plan -� First Floor Plan City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall November 1,2018 2170184.00 � �� Z15 � � � � . _ .: . .:_....._._ .... _._...::..... ....:::� .. ...,:-�....... i i � � 2.5 � � � � I . ......._ .. ........... ....... . i i i i i i i i i i i i o---�---- -- --- --- --- --- -- --� �--I---- --��--�-------�-------�----�� -� NORTH I I I II II II II II II II VESTIBULE ARTS GOUNGIL MEETING I BOOKTIQUE I I��,�____� Z 0 EXHIBI�CE MULTI�SE SALE�A I I I LO�By I I I COMMUNITY I I ROOM, 211 214 219 MUNICIPAL b I I I ICOURT,ANO I I _____ STAIR#2 I I I I I�HAMBEIRS I I 209 I I I I I I I 312 I I � I ELEVATOR I ELEVATOkp2 � 208 � 31 I I I I _---- E - - -�- - - -�- -�- f- - E E - ----- ---- - - - - --- - --- E - - - - � --- � � � _ � -- MEN'S MEN'S I� � II RESTROOM � RESTROOM �� - 309 � 201 � I � I � II WOMEN'S RES ROOM RESTROOM 206 � 308I __ CASHIER I ^ COUNTER �_ _ _ _ _� /n 1 _ ,I, _ _ 306 � � T LOBBV I RECEPTION 201 203 LOBBY 301 UTILITIES I GOUNTER I 305 BLDG,ENG,8 � PLAN 200UNTER � C �—-—- — — � -� �CMO,CAO,HR, IAND FINANCE COUNTER GONFERENGE I 304 I I 303 � _ _ _ _� � I ELEVATOR#1 � � I ELEVATOR#1 � 349 230 IONFERENCE STAIR#1 302 STAIR M1 z3� 350 CONFERENCE II CONFERENGE 300 I 200 �_ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _� �_ kll _ _ _ _ _ _ _��_ _ _ _ - -�P,� �/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �J �J 2.5 �J �J �J �J �J �J 2.5 �J �J �J �J �" Second Floor Plan �" Third Floor Plan City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall November 1,2018 2170184.00 � 4.2 a�tiA .��s REDEVEL�PMENS AGENCY REPDRT � , �,1 �� n V ❑ °REGar� TO: Kent Studebaker, Chair Scott Lazenby, Executive Director FROM: Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary SUBJECT: Approval of Board Meeting Minutes DATE: October 31, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve minutes as written. ATTACH M ENTS 1. June 5, 2018, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 2. June 12, 2018, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 3. July 3, 2018, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 4. July 17, 2018, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 5. September 18, 2018 Draft Special Meeting Minutes 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 O��A E � �� LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING � � � � MINUTES �c� O June 5, 2018 �REGO� 13. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 10:40 p.m., following the regular City Council meeting on June 5, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary; Shawn Cross, Treasurer 14. PUBLIC HEARING 14.1 LORA Resolution 18-06, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (Urban Renewal Agency) Adopting the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2018 (2018-19 Fiscal Year), Making Appropriations, and Certifying the Division of Tax Revenues Pursuant to Section 1C, Article IX of the Oregon Constitution. LORA Resolution 18-06 Mr. Lazenby announced that the Board would follow the same public hearing process in considering LORA Resolution 18-06 as was described by the City Attorney for the City's Budget resolution in the City Council meeting earlier in the evening. Mr. Powell summarized the time limits for testimony. Testimony Chair Studebaker called for any testimony. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. Board Member Gudman moved to adopt LORA Resolution 18-06. Board Member Manz seconded the motion. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 June 5, 2018 Member Gudman reminded the Board that with the debt that has been issued, the Redevelopment Agency has now exhausted the debt capacity of the East End Redevelopment District. He commended Mr. Cross and the team members for securing the favorable interest rate of 3.11% on the debt. A voice vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman voting `aye'. (7-0) 15. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 10:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON \ Kent Studebaker, Chair ` Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 June 5, 2018 ATTACHMENT 2 O��A E � �� LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING � � � � MINUTES �c� O June 12, 2018 �REGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. on June 12, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, Gudman, and Kohlhoff Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary; Kari Linder, Deputy Recording Secretary; Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager; Dale Jorgensen, Police Captain Others Present: Ted Jacobsen, DAY CPM; Adam Olsen, Mackenzie; Jeff Humphreys, Mackenzie; Carl Hampson, Mackenzie; Adrienne Clifford, Mackenzie; Bill Jensen, Howard S. Wright; Aaron Braun, Howard S. Wright; Jerry Johnson, Johnson Economics 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. STUDY SESSION � 4.1 City Hall and Police Facility Project Report and Attachments Report and Attachments with Continuous Page Numbers Mr. Wheeler provided background and an overview of the two options for consideration by the Board, as discussed in the Redevelopment Agency Report (Report and Attachments with Continuous Page Numbers). Introduction of project team members followed, from DAY CPM (owner's representative), Mackenzie (architectural and engineering services), Howard S. Wright (construction manager/general contractor), and Johnson Economics (development economics). The two concepts, addressing questions and requests of the Board (p 8-19), would be presented Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 June 12, 2018 by Mackenzie, Mr. Wheeler announced. Subject to Board direction, the team hoped to move forward on a project path and be able to present an amendment to the design contract with Mackenzie in July. With an accompanying PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Hampson provided a high-level review of the design schemes, beginning with Option A (p 20-24). As proposed, this scheme would create a combined city hall and police facility on the corner of A Avenue and 3rd Street, adjacent to current City Hall. He referred to plan diagrams in discussing Police/City Hall functions and their locations in the building. With the aid of a massing model, he discussed the building's scale and relationship compared to the existing city hall; he also illustrated options for entry from A Avenue, connection to the parking on the south, and a potential configuration of the public-access portion on the south and east sides. He addressed several questions from Board members about Option A. Mr. Wheeler noted that the question of redevelopment opportunities for the current city hall site had been raised, specifically in light of the encumbrance on a developer having to build parking for the city hall. Mr. Johnson, who had been asked to study the impacts, observed that the property, with existing structures, might have a value of $3.5 million. However, an obligation to provide structured parking for the City's programs next door would be an encumbrance to a developer in terms of residual value. He discussed a number of considerations, concluding that the potential residual value for the current city hall property was small and that there was a limit to how much a potential developer could be asked to do in providing for the new phase. Board Member LaMotte discussed disadvantages of the development opportunity of the current city hall property, notably the long-term commitment for parking, in comparison to the eastern portion of the block. He asked which of the two portions, i.e., east or west, offered the better site for a developer. In extended discussion, Mr. Johnson offered a number of considerations, with Member LaMotte favoring the east side for development potential. Mr. Johnson next addressed Member LaMotte's question about the market for office space that the current city hall might offer. While the market was now excellent, that would likely not be the case in three years, Mr. Johnson indicated. As requested by the Board, Mr.Wheeler reported that the team had explored an option that would replace City Hall in its current location, Option A West (p 96). On the premise that it would replicate the proposed Option A (i.e., Option A East) on the west side, the team found that this would add $10 million to the cost, for two primary reasons: (1) temporary relocation of City Hall services, as well as Police and LOCOM functions, with the latter involving risk of unknown expenses; and (2) the need to rebuild some of the structured parking to meet the parking requirement on the west side. While recognizing benefits of Option A West, staff considered the cost differential untenable. Board Member Buck initiated discussion of the need to address the parking requirement, regardless of the choice between East or West options. Member LaMotte requested additional data and discussed assumptions illustrating that, minus the $5.1 million for relocation in Option A West and with addition of $5.5 million to Option A East for parking, costs of the two were essentially the same, in the vicinity of $45 million. He urged the Board to address parking honestly, now rather than later. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 June 12, 2018 Mr. Jensen responded to additional questions from Member LaMotte, who was seeking apples- to-apples cost comparisons of East and West options, including aspects of site work. Further cost analysis should provide an Option A West that mirrored the Option A East building; demolition cost for the existing City Hall was also needed. In ensuing discussion, Mr. Jensen advised that the assumptions for Option A East could not be carried straight across. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that comparative data, including cost estimates, was available (p 96). Chair Studebaker asked the team if they were comfortable with the cost estimates they had provided for the Option A East ($40 million) and West ($50 million) scenarios. Mr. Jacobsen reiterated the two primary issues, i.e., relocation and parking expense for Option A West, which accounted for the $10 million difference; without parking, this option would cost $45 million. In continued discussion, he responded to additional questions from Member LaMotte, who discussed the inevitability of dealing with parking and the advisability of Option A West. Mr. Wheeler noted that it was the Board's choice whether to address the parking now or to build a project that utilizes the existing parking that is available. Member LaMotte asked the Board to consider the consequences of failing to address parking sooner, rather than later. In further discussion, Board Member O'Neill opined that the City would never sell any of the properties, which have value only to the City. He suggested that discussion of a potential sale be taken off the table. Board Member Kohlhoff expressed her view that Option A West should be built; she concurred that both properties should be retained. Mr. Hampson reviewed Option B, consisting of a new police facility to be constructed from the ground up and the renovation of existing City Hall. The approach for the police facility was to create a two-story building above one level of parking. This configuration afforded a smaller building footprint and enabled the remaining portion of the site to be used for at-grade parking. Displaying plan diagrams, he discussed police functions and public areas envisioned for the upper floors. For the lower level, plans included car stackers to increase the parking count. Total square footage for this scheme was approximately 41,000 square feet, he noted. Mr. Wheeler stated that the second component, a City Hall renovation including key rehabilitation measures, brought the project total to $40 million for Option B. Reviewing the latest assessment of the building's condition, he identified key problems as water intrusion and general wear and tear. Essential improvements would include repair of the exterior walls, replacement of windows, doors, flooring, and carpeting, and adding a roof with new mechanical systems such as HVAC and elevators. He also recommended that the opportunity be taken, while the building was opened up, to undertake measures to improve the building's performance in a seismic event. Though this would not bring the building to the standard of an essential facility nor to current code, it would be cost effective. Responding to questions from Board Member Manz, Mr. Jensen indicated that both time and money could be saved by relocating all City Hall functions elsewhere during renovation. Significant cost was associated with measures that would be required to protect the public and staff during construction, along with considerable other disruption. With regard to possibilities for housing staff temporarily in the new police facility, Mr.Wheeler advised that this analysis had not yet been done. Member Buck, recalling the determination that the building had not been built to code originally, reminded his colleagues of the considerable expense of bringing it up to code and asked if the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 June 12, 2018 proposed renovation would achieve that; Mr. Wheeler indicated that it would not. Discussion followed as to background of the non-compliant situation, with Mackenzie staff offering perspectives. Ms. Clifford clarified that they were not conveying that there had been an intentional choice to avert code requirements; it was simply the finding of structural engineers, based on the current building and the structural drawings and code in effect at the time. Mr. Lazenby asked the Board to bear in mind that the original goal was to address the space needs of Police and LOCOM and to address water-intrusion problems of City Hall, not to bring it up to modern seismic standards. Member Buck asked about relocation costs for staff under the renovation scenario. Mr.Wheeler drew the Board's attention to the Option B budget estimates prepared earlier(p 50). He discussed subsequent research on leasing rates and other factors that could lead to relocation costs of$2.5 million or more. Mr. Olsen noted that this was also addressed in the questions from Board members (p 15-16). Suggestions and questions about approaches for minimizing relocation costs ensued. Member O'Neill emphasized the importance of obtaining realistic estimates to enable the Board to make a good decision on the project. Mr.Jacobsen described several factors that had been considered in preparing the estimate, which he believed provided a reasonable assumption at this point. Member LaMotte posed additional questions of compliance with code and safety/seismic standards under Option B; Mr. Jensen noted that the measures included in the option would provide minimal improvements for the city hall building, and Member LaMotte expressed additional concerns. He also questioned the need for parking stackers on the level below the police building; Ms. Clifford explained that the stackers were included as a means of accommodating personal vehicles of Police and other staff there, in addition to Police vehicles; an option without stackers also had been provided. After expressing additional concerns about the expenditure of$11.5 million for a renovation that did not achieve code compliance, Member LaMotte acknowledged that a floor-by-floor approach would apparently not be feasible. Member O'Neill observed that the cost estimate for roof replacement appeared high (p 46). Mr. Jensen responded to related questions, discussing elements of the detail (p 48)and emphasizing that the team had obtained pricing for the three largest risk elements of the renovation: removal and replacement of the fa�ade and new mechanical. The team was very confident in their estimates in those key areas, he stated. While the price of roofing itself showed volatility, he indicated that the estimates overall were realistic. Member O'Neill reiterated his concern that the Board have estimates that were not inflated to ensure that they could make the renovate/rebuild decision that was in citizens' best interests. In response to Mr. Wheeler's call for further questions on Option B relocation, Member LaMotte asked about the extent of the search for options; he stated that Board members wished to avoid paying full-market rates to lease space or for buildouts that would be used only for two years. He suggested various space options, including trailers on the site and future availability at the Marylhurst University campus, and questioned the wisdom of buildouts in the current office-space market. Regardless of the project option chosen, relocation would be involved, and he stated that the costs could be reduced and other solutions could be found. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 June 12, 2018 While acknowledging that the estimated relocation costs were probably conservative, Mr. Lazenby differentiated these estimates, which had been prepared for purposes of decision making, from the subsequent efforts that staff would make to minimize actual costs. For logistical reasons, staff strongly preferred the shorter-term move of City Hall employees to trying to move Police and LOCOM. Option B relocation costs were clearly lower, he noted. Member LaMotte outlined requirements for the LOCOM operation as he and other Board members understood them: a secure space with sophisticated technology requirements that would accommodate two or three dispatchers at a time. He suggested that currently-unused space at the Maintenance Center would offer a good relocation option for LOCOM. In ensuing discussion, Mr. Lazenby and Mr. Wheeler identified concerns about necessary connection of microwave and CenturyLink phone lines and inadequate space for the dispatch consoles. Member LaMotte indicated that opportunities at the site remained to be explored. Captain Jorgensen clarified that three to four dispatchers work concurrently, with four being the full staffing level. The more important issue is the agreement with Clackamas County whereby LOCOM serves as the County's back-up dispatch center. This requires the availability of a total of six consoles, as well as the necessary equipment to operate them. With the additional technical requirements of server rooms in close proximity, he indicated, this was a significant undertaking for an 18-month relocation. Member LaMotte clarified that his proposal was for a permanent relocation. Captain Jorgensen recommended strongly against separating the Police Department and LOCOM operations, noting that the Department manages LOCOM, unlike other emergency dispatch centers that are self-managed. Board Member Gudman expressed agreement and also opined that the Board should avoid moving Police and LOCOM more than once. Member Kohlhoff indicated that a second move, if necessary, would be acceptable in her view. Member Manz asked if additional staff would be necessary with Police and LOCOM at separate locations, and how this compared to self-managed dispatch centers. Captain Jorgensen described differences in governance and emphasized the integral role of LOCOM in serving the city's needs through close physical proximity and management by the Police Department. He also discussed how LOCOM functions as a mini-emergency operations center. The effectiveness of this and other synergy would be lost or reduced, and additional staff could be needed, he indicated. Mr. Wheeler next drew the Board's attention to the comparison matrix showing Options A and B (p 52-53) and noted that both options essentially met the $40 million budget. With regard to the East/West discussion, he reiterated that relocation was the key driver for higher cost of Option A West. He echoed Mr. Lazenby's commitment to achieving maximum efficiency with relocation space, for either option. It was anticipated that the team would be able to tighten up the budget somewhat, possibly offering opportunities to explore sustainability and cross-laminated timber. At Member O'Neill's request, Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Humphreys clarified the "usable" square footage, i.e., excluding parking, shown in the matrix (p 52); in essence, the two options were comparable, with Option A at 60,000 and Option B at 58,000. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the team's recognition early in the process of a high-performing building as an important value; this had been reinforced by Board and community input. Despite the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 June 12, 2018 budget factors, solar would be part of either the new city hall or police facility, he noted. It would be the project team's objective to reinvest any cost savings, e.g., relocation expense, in measures that would extend the life of the building or achieve a higher level of perFormance. In concluding, he confirmed that both the project team and staff supported either of the options, A (East) and B, and were prepared to move forward with expediency. Subject to the Board's direction, they would anticipate groundbreaking in the summer of 2019. Member Kohlhoff expressed reservations about the project options and concern about the use of urban renewal funds for a purpose that she does not regard as urban renewal. She advocated that the first step be consideration of the block as a whole. In spite of possible temporary disruption and even additional cost, the outcome would be a better product that better serves the community. She expressed full support for dealing now with all of the issues, specifically the parking, as recommended by Member LaMotte. She confirmed that her inclination was to support Option A West because it opens up possibilities that will better benefit the city in the long run. Member O'Neill stated that an important factor in deciding between Option A East and Option B for him would be ensuring accuracy of the cost and square footage numbers; in particular, he questioned that for the same price, a new building with 2,000 more square feet of space could be built. An apples-to-apples comparison was needed to determine whether or not demolition of the existing city hall would escalate the cost estimate for Option A East, in which case he would favor Option B. Mr. Jensen and Ms. Clifford reviewed the square-footage calculations, net of parking, advising that Option A East would provide 60,000 square feet and Option B would provide 58,000. Member LaMotte expressed his opposition to Option A East, citing several concerns, including convoluted access to the parking and his objection to investment in the existing city hall building that would not be code compliant and is substandard in various other ways. His preference was for a campus approach. He also requested more discussion and consideration of his relocation suggestions, notably siting of LOCOM at the Maintenance Center; neither the relocation cost nor the co-location of Police and LOCOM should be "the tail wagging the dog" in this decision, he asserted. Additional refinements were needed first, but his preference was for Option A West. After confirming the additional 2,000 square feet provided by Option A East versus B and their comparable cost estimates, Chair Studebaker indicated that Option A East now looked better to him. He expressed his support for Captain Jorgensen's recommendation that the Police and LOCOM continue to be located together. Members O'Neill and Manz inquired about costs for demolition of the current city hall building. Mr. Olsen advised that this was estimated at $550,000. Member Gudman expressed agreement with those who did not favor Option A East because of the associated parking issues. The points raised by Mr. Johnson with respect to the valuation and retention of the current City Hall property for some unknown period of time also factored into his decision. At $50 million, A West was not acceptable; the only potential funding for the additional $10 million would involve going to the voters, which he stated was not a good idea in view of other matters that the City Council would be considering. By process of elimination he therefore was prepared to choose Option B at this time. He made note of the trade-off risk between Options A East and B: the unknown costs of remodeling City Hall in Option B versus Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 June 12, 2018 the parking risk of Option A. In brief follow-up discussion, Chair Studebaker asked about possibilities for retaining the City Hall property, perhaps to address the parking issue. Member Gudman stated that his comments had been based on the assumption that the plan would be to encumber a future purchaser with parking on it. If instead the alternative was for the City to retain the property, likely for parking, he could support Option A East. Member O'Neill noted that, under that scenario, an additional piece of information would be needed: cost of leveling the site to accommodate underground parking, perhaps with some form of park above and drive-in/drive-out access to the new city hall. Mr. Jacobsen offered comments from the taxpayer's perspective on the parking, and discussion followed. He noted that if it was decided to proceed with Option A East, the result would be a new city hall and police facility, with parking available immediately. After five years, if nothing was done with the existing City Hall property, no more money had been spent for the new city hall and police facility. Member Buck discussed the importance of making the best use of the current City Hall property; leaving it vacant would support neither that objective nor the purpose of urban renewal. He opposed Option B because of his objection to a rehabilitation of the current City Hall that does not bring the building to a safe, secure standard. He expressed support for Captain Jorgensen's position on maintaining the operational efficiency of adjacent Police and LOCOM functions; however, he did not oppose a temporary move prior to moving the two back together, if necessary. Regardless of the configuration on either east or west sides, his priority was to have the block programmed in a way that best utilized the existing parking and the remaining urban renewal dollars. A building constructed to current standards and a partner for programming the block should be the focus. He would support moving forward with an Option A, either East or West, that would eliminate the remaining unknowns, he indicated. Member Gudman observed that it did not appear there was majority support for Option A West. Member Manz, noting that she had decided earlier in favor of Option B, now recognized other opportunities presented by Option A East, as well as by retaining the current City Hall property for demolition/parking possibilities and potential partnering for other purposes. Chair Studebaker moved to pursue Option A East. Board Member O'Neill seconded the motion. Member LaMotte discussed his concerns that the City would need to address parking with regard to the current City Hall property, one way or another. Use of the key "Main Street" corner at A Avenue and 4th Street for parking was an issue of poor urban design; it was likely better suited as a park or plaza. The current city hall building should be demolished, and no other investment should be made in it. A better connection from parking to the city hall was needed. He reiterated his view that costs of the east and west versions of Option A were the same, $45 million. Option A West, with additional refinement, was his strong preference. Member O'Neill, reminding the group of the $40 million available to spend, asked if the team preferred to focus on one option, rather than three, coming out of this study session. This appeared to be the desired direction. Following brief discussion about potential modifications to the motion, Chair Studebaker clarified that the motion on the floor was to accept Option A East as presented. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 June 12, 2018 A roll call vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members O'Neill, Manz, and Gudman voting `aye'. Board Members Buck, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voted `no'. (4-3) Noting that more consensus would be desirable in a decision of this significance, Mr. Lazenby suggested that the project team could investigate some of the demolition/parking/plaza options that had been mentioned. Member Buck indicated that the more important priority was to explore options for bringing in a partner to program the block. Mr. Lazenby, expressing concern that such a process could take a couple of years while the project team would be idled, advised that he would not recommend this approach. Member LaMotte opined that Option B should be taken off the table to simplify the process moving forward. He discussed his continued interest in holding the eastside property, with its frontage, for an advantageous future sale. Finally, he indicated that Option A East be regarded as the prime focus for the project, while A West be further analyzed for cost-reduction and other opportunities. Brief discussion of parking and property-sale possibilities on the east side followed. Member Manz pointed out the inherent value of this civic block to citizens, indicating that it should be held for future uses that would benefit them. Member Gudman expressed opposition to the idea of an empty lot on the A Avenue corner, if the current city hall building were to be demolished. While a park with parking below might be nice, he stated that he would not consider it a good use of this space in the civic center. He looked forward to learning what additional opportunities the team might identify, which he hoped would address some of the concerns raised by those who had voted `no' on the motion. Member LaMotte questioned the need for the additional parking spaces, i.e., 151 versus 127, as he understood it. In further discussion, team members clarified details. Mr. Lazenby suggested that the team might explore the opportunity to remove the retail square footage and perhaps site it on the west street frontage. 5. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 5:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary ON Kent Studebaker, Chair Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 June 12, 2018 ATTACHMENT 3 O��A E � �� LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING � � � � MINUTES �c� O July 3, 2018 �REGO� 12. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 7:32 p.m., during a recess of the regular City Council meeting on July 3, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Buck, Manz, LaMotte, Gudman, Kohlhoff, and O'Neill Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary Others Present: Vanessa Sturgeon, Sturgeon Development Partners 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The LORA Board will meet in Executive Session under authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions. Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The LORA Board met in executive session beginning at 7:34 p.m. and ending at 7:45 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 7:47 p.m. 14. BOARD BUSINESS 14.1 North Anchor Project Update Ms. Sturgeon reported that the hotel portion of the North Anchor Project was progressing nicely. With continuing escalation in construction costs, the Board will likely be asked to consider a request for reduced parking on the hotel site; only half of the planned amount is needed for the hotel as a result of ride-sharing impacts, she stated. The design remains largely as last seen by the Board, except that the uses on the two sites have been switched, with the hotel now set on the smaller of the two sites. The development team anticipates moving forward first on the hotel, followed by development on the site to the east at a later time. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 July 3, 2018 Responding to Chair Studebaker's question about project phasing, Ms. Sturgeon clarified that a two-phase project was key to its success. She described her company's current efforts with a client seeking a corporate headquarters, which potentially could be developed on the eastern portion of the block, abutting State Street. While it was not at all a certainty, if this site were chosen, the offices would take the place of the planned multi-family housing. Board Member Buck asked if she would be amenable to having the City release her from the development commitment related to the east side of the site. While amenable to this, Ms. Sturgeon advised, it was not her preference. One reason was that she wished to continue exploring the opportunity for the headquarters office, which she perceived as a potential catalyst for the Lake Oswego economy. She assured the Board that she would keep the project moving forward purposefully, continue to keep the Executive Director informed, and would inform the Board promptly if a change of course was needed. Board Member LaMotte expressed the Board's interest in moving the project forward, including learning the status of the hotel portion. After offering observations about potential opportunities for the eastern side, he asked about the preference for the northwest corner of the site for the hotel, as opposed to the State Street side. Ms. Sturgeon confirmed that the northwest corner was the hotelier's preference, based on the desire for optimum traffic movement, including more efficient vehicle access to the hotel from B Avenue. Member LaMotte outlined his perceptions with regard to parking and design scenarios that remained to be resolved, indicating that he would be comfortable knowing that the hotel portion was ready to move forward. In response to his question about the timeframe for a decision on the potential corporate headquarters, Ms. Sturgeon estimated that this should be determined within 45 days. Mr. Lazenby asked when the development team would expect to come to the City for design review for the hotel, if the phased approach was taken. Ms. Sturgeon responded that they hoped to do this by the end of 2018. 14.2 Approval of Meeting Minutes Report and Attachments 14.2.1 April 17, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes 14.2.2 May 15, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes Board Member Gudman moved the adoption of the April 17, 2018, and May 15, 2018, minutes. Board Member Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Buck, Manz, LaMotte, Gudman, Kohlhoff, and O'Neill voting `aye'. (7-0) 15. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the LORA Board meeting at 7:58 p.m. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 July 3, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary i APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON Kent Studebaker, Chair Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 July 3, 2018 ATTACHMENT 4 O��A E � �� LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING � � � � MINUTES �c� O July 17, 2018 �REGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. on July 17, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Manz, LaMotte, Gudman, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Buck Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary; Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager Others Present: Carl Hampson, Jeff Humphreys, and Thomas Peck, Mackenzie 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Studebaker led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. BOARD BUSINESS 4.1 City Hall Concept Approval and Architectural and Engineering Services Agreement Board Report and Attachments Mr. Wheeler introduced the design team from Mackenzie: Mr. Hampson, Mr. Humphreys, and Mr. Peck. As discussed in the Redevelopment Agency Report, team members and staff were requesting direction and approval of the revised concept for a new city hall, and also approval of an agreement with Mackenzie to move forward into schematic design. Mr.Wheeler affirmed that the updated concept being presented to the Board was based on feedback and direction received at the Board's June 12 study session, along with input from staff. Mr. Humphreys reviewed the format of the presentation, which would begin with a high-level overview by Mr. Peck of the new scheme. This involved an expansion of the design associated with the previous Option A. It would demolish the existing city hall, redevelop the new building to the adjacent parcel, and redevelop the parking lot. Mr. Hampson would then present some higher- Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 4 July 17, 2018 level detail to illustrate possibilities for the project; at this early stage these had not been vetted by the City's Planning, Police or other staff. The Board should not regard these as final designs, but they had been used to inform the basis of design in the cost estimate, Mr. Humphreys noted. Mr. Peck highlighted notable revisions that had been made to the Option A proposal. A new surface parking lot at the location of the existing city hall offered several benefits, including (1) an increased number of on-site public parking spaces with direct at-grade entry to the city hall; (2) a more open site, providing improved visibility and prominence for the city hall from A Avenue; and (3) a more cohesive connection from the existing surface lot on the southern portion of the site to entry points to the building. The site now is organized by a linear circulation plaza that would connect A Avenue and both surface lots to the north and southwest corners of the building. This site plan had then guided the team in developing floor plans for the various City/Police/LOCOM functions, which he outlined with the aid of PowerPoint slides (Attachment 3). Mr. Hampson presented a preview of the team's potential approach for the exterior. Their process had been driven by three major design considerations: (1) incorporating input from the community that had identified desirable building elements; (2) maintaining a high level of awareness of cost impacts; and (3) taking into account Lake Oswego's design guidelines. They had focused on meshing the three elements to achieve a best-value design for the exterior and for development of interior spaces. Displaying a series of graphic images, he discussed the concept from several perspectives and pointed out design elements of the connection between streets, parking lots, and the building. The team envisions a simple expression for the exterior, he indicated, one that differentiates it from other buildings in the area yet consistent with the Lake Oswego design style. He pointed out the gabled roof forms suggested for the primary public spaces, i.e., on the building's west side and for Council Chambers/Court/community room spaces; he noted that this was a preferred element identified through public outreach. The gabled roof in these public areas give the building a unique identity as a civic building and distinguishes it from retail and other uses to the east, he emphasized. Most of the rest of the building would have a large, flat roof accommodating photovoltaics and the extensive Police/LOCOM communications equipment. In concluding, he emphasized the team's effort to achieve a very simple form with no complexity in its structural system; this would provide a cost-effective and flexible building. Materials are still being reviewed, with a focus on balancing cost, design standards, and a material palette that will be appropriate for the City. Mr. Wheeler reiterated that Mackenzie had provided the images to aid the Board in discussing integration of the parking and other conceptual aspects, as well as to convey the principles guiding them. This concept was a starting point; if it was approved by the Board, the schematic design would be the next step. Board Member Kohlhoff inquired about availability of the new parking lot for community events during non-peak-use times. Mr. Wheeler confirmed that this would be an option; the lot might also be made available for supplemental public parking for downtown events. He noted that a structural fill would be placed on this site prior to construction of the parking lot; this would enable a building to be constructed on the site at some future date if needs were to change. Clarifying locations of the two plazas, Mr. Hampson described the connections and other opportunities for these spaces. Member Kohlhoff indicated that these aspects offset the look of the parking lot and that she appreciated the potential for dual use of the lot. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 July 17, 2018 Board Member LaMotte observed that one of the images had appeared to show the addition of windows for work spaces on the Police floor, and this was confirmed by Mackenzie team members. In additional comments Member LaMotte expressed appreciation for other aspects of the design, highlighting the opportunity to buffer the parking lot from A Avenue. In response to a question from Board Member Manz, Mr. Peck clarified the location of the entry point to the new parking lot from 4�" Street and described access to public areas of the city hall. Board Member Buck asked if the proposed design would provide about the same amount of parking as is currently available. Mr. Wheeler indicated that, while changes might still be made, the new facility would likely provide a slightly greater number of spaces in comparison to the current 134 on the site. Regarding LEED certification, Mr. Humphreys explained that the intent was to identify strategies for the design that were specified for v4 Gold, the second-highest level in the LEED program, regardless of whether or not the City chose to seek certification. He indicated that implementing some combination of strategies identified in the eco-charrette and in the previous project scheme would allow the project to meet budget. Mr. Wheeler noted that a few sustainability items included in the earlier Options A and B would not be part of the new project design. However, other strategies, along with meeting current building code, would allow the City to achieve a higher standard of sustainability than with the existing building. Chair Studebaker inquired about the project in comparison to budget. Mr. Wheeler noted that addition of the parking and plaza would entail approximately an additional $2.3 million; however, the team had already identified some opportunities to reduce costs. Approval to move forward with schematic design would enable estimates to be further refined so as to meet the $40 million budget. He reminded the Board of the 10°/o contingency, as discussed in the Report (p 4); it was very important to preserve the contingency funds as long as possible, he emphasized. If contingency funds remained available after completion of Phase 1, they would be used to fund Phase 2. At the time of schematic design presentation, staff would return with an updated cost estimate for the Board. Their goal would continue to be bringing the project in on budget, he confirmed. In response to related questions from Board Member Gudman, he clarified that none of the budgeted contingency funds had yet been spent. Chair Studebaker moved to approve going forward as recommended in the Redevelopment Agency Report (Page 4). Board Member Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Manz, LaMotte, Gudman, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and Buck voting `aye'. (7-0) 5. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 July 17, 2018 APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON Kent Studebaker, Chair Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4 July 17, 2018 ATTACHMENT 5 O��A E � �� LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING � � � � MINUTES �c� O September 18, 2018 �REGO� 12. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 6:07 p.m., following the regular City Council meeting on September 18, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660(2)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The LORA Board met in executive session beginning at 6:12 p.m. and ending at 6:30 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 6:30 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the LORA Board meeting at 6:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 September 18, 2018 APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON Kent Studebaker, Chair � Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 September 18, 2018 p4� E �s� LAKE OSWEGO U - � o COUNCIL MEETING J OREGO� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER Date: ��Ix Subject: �i,' ,,�.�, P�Pr�[f��,., Name: I'1nr2 i...�?',!;n6,�� Address: i��1��a'�I YYIU'f�`)`�� (�� City/State/ZI P: _t�l�c� 0�.:�'':j^ �`�- °�'"1�� Phone: �n; :;;; ;;�;;% Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No`` If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 �F� E �s� LAKEOSWEGO � t I � COUNCIL MEETING �" ` U J O OREGO� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER � � :,��,� '�"� � , �J<� �d.� "�'e",'�. Date: Subject.�, �t °�`"�'� i',��'' r� v� ' Name• �' �� ;c� � , � Address: /��,�i� ��,��' ,��''�:='� � �'�,�,"� ,» �� City/State/ZIP: ��r� ��K'��1,�,�-:-� ,�-�J � . , Phone: �;�� '�,��,' ��- `�s£� .. Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes _ No„� If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 p4� E �s� LAKE OSWEGO U `. � p COUNCIL MEETING �REGOC� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER , �° � CGy('YL��a�/f Date: � G� v; �� G�� Subject: � rr�c a ' i�g . Name: �%/L .�.�?L � #/�1`��` Address: 1��14� � 5' � G!7 �P� �2�d�� City/State/ZIP: �.;j�� G �� — Phone: ��.3— � � �`1- 33��, Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No� If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 �4� � �s� LAKEOSWEGO � ' � COUNCIL MEETING F U J O OREG�c� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER Date: � � i �� Subject: �`^e'C�-`�� Q �, , `�exvic� � �� . Name: ��- `�-�J Pa,.ea,� � Address: ��Z �+�-i�'� �� J� city/State/ZIP: �� (� , �-- 4�35 Phone: 503J�UO� �� Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes� No� � — If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: W��Yl, G�C� Rev Dec 2017 04� E �s� LAKE OSWEGO H t I � COUNCIL MEETING U J O OREG�� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER � Date: Y i�1�/ 1 � Subject:�s�„� �,j,� � ��°��,� Name:��u�,-y, o l�' GU��=. Address: ` �'� g S � ��'(� City/State/ZIP: �r�1b?j `—I' Phone: �G ��J "�� y- �� Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 p�c�' F �s� LAKEOSWEGO �' '" � COUNCIL MEETING �. U ) O OREGO� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER t-., "` 1 Date: F��'� '«� Subject: C� �-`�''�-�� Name: � ��.-�-� �1�-t.:c..��.�,�� Address: � � '� � +�.E+.e-��t�; 4�1��f ��} � City/State/ZIP: �,,,.t� Phone: �� q-`� � �� ., Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes _ No �, If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 p4LA E �s LAKEOSWEGO N � COUNCIL MEETING U �� O OREGO� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER � , -, � F Date: � i� "� � �. � �� Subject. �' � :~t� �� 4C� i r � , Name: � . � � I % : ` �� Address: � 5� � / �ity/state/z�P: L� fi � v "��e � v ua' �� 1 , ��`F Phone: � 1 `' - G�f' � " � 'f ` �a Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes F/ No If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: r � ; � � ; J c, f�% f'i L= � y, �r� ,-� 5 . �� f f y�� ,,,, F � t �3 's 1 i... T 4`F. J ' x Rev Dec 2017 p4� E �s� LAKEOSWEGO � �„;_ �-^ � COUNCIL MEETING U � o �REGO� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER Date: �C� ` �� — � � Subject: �T� L L ) /�fp�1v l��fjo�E i Name: � � (� �� Address: 1� �"�� (�` �;�� U�� City/State/ZIP: /� K� �S �—��, (p� �--�� Phone: � � �� f� / � Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No � If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 04� E �s� LAKEOSWEGO �'' � COUNCIL MEETING H U J o OREGO� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER Date: �� / � Subject: `�i4�� vp.v �o�� Name: f��G� .E'GC�">" Address: �yvg ��CLp,� {�� City/State/ZIP: L� (', /r)f� C� '7(Jj 5< Phone: �i�3— 6 �/— �//t-r7 Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No � If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 p4� E �s� LAKE OSWEGO � " - � COUNCIL MEETING U I.,.,�.0 J OREGOC� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER C �av�of �Zne�� Date: �l : f„ Subject: �a�E s � wr� �� , °`�•, < — Name: �.� f? ,^� �.�� , ! Address: � "'� �` �� 4 � i ,Pke��" �A� (3"� i f F.�: A City/State/ZIP �� ' "� �- _�'�% �� < ; Phone: � - _ � , F;;�; Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 �4� F �s� LAKE OSWEGO � J � � COUNCIL MEETING U O OREG�c� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER �t�T �� P Date: h'�� Subject: _ �� Sli �8 -�G �'i��•'-1 c s �r-�avr s�Y Name: �� v�fhN Address: 1��2' Siv 13-r�d��i��' �z�«� City/State/ZIP: �n�<�-Pq�� "�,�2�—r`��'Qr'z Phone: ��. �-�.�: � �f�`3 �� ,-+ro��i�GpPJ ��w(G��`� : Ld/� Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 8.1 a�tiA .��s CnUNCl1 REP�RT � , �,1 �� n V ❑ °REGar� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Crystal M. Shum, PE Boones Ferry Road Project Lead Engineering Department SUBJECT: Authorization of the Use of Competitive Proposal Selection Method for Construction of Boones Ferry Road — Phase 1 DATE: October 26, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 ACTION Adopt Resolution 18-47, authorizing a special procurement for the use of the competitive proposal bidding method of contracting as an alternative to traditional competitive bidding for construction of the Boones Ferry Road Improvement Project (Phase 1). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is seeking authorization for use of the competitive proposal bidding method. In accordance with ORS 279C.335 and ORS 279C.400, the City may use an alternative bidding method if the City Council, as the local contract review board, exempts the public improvement construction contract from the competitive bidding requirements and allows a competitive proposal solicitation method, following a public hearing that approves findings in support of the exemption. Staff has submitted draft findings and public notice has been provided (see draft Resolution 18-47, with findings as Exhibit A). BACKGROUND Generally a public construction contract is solicited and awarded to the lowest bidder. However, the public contract rules allow the City to use an alternative method when findings demonstrate that: a. The exemption is unlikely to encourage favoritism in awarding public improvement contracts or substantially diminish competition for public improvement contracts. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 b. Awarding a public improvement contract under the exemption will likely result in substantial cost savings and other substantial benefits to the contracting agency. ORS 279C.335(2). The City has exempted construction contracts from the competitive bidding before when complexity, budget, and scheduling warranted the alternative method, i.e., the Operations Center was constructed under the Construction Manager—General Contractor method. In accordance with ORS 279C.335(5) staff has prepared draft findings and a public notice has been published to notify persons of the opportunity to comment to the Council at a public hearing about the draft findings. Draft Resolution 18-47, with the findings included as Exhibit A, were available for public review and comment. DISCUSSION Why is the Construction Proposal Method the Right Choice?The Boones Ferry Road— Phase 1 Project lends itself to the Competitive Proposal method of contracting for the following reasons: Complexity. Construction of a project like Boones Ferry Road — Phase 1 is very complex, with improvements including a complicated segmented construction sequence, highly coordinated scheduling, franchise utility relocation coordination, and dynamic traffic control. To ensure the safety of the public and to coordinate with business owners, a project this complex requires technical expertise, knowledge, and community engagement, all of which can be factored into the competitive proposal process. Budget. With the current construction climate, the cost of construction projects have seen a significant increase. By using the Competitive Proposal Method, the City will be able to select a contractor with demonstrated experience and success in implementing similar projects, which increases the likelihood that the project will be completed on budget with fewer construction delays and change orders. Schedule. Using a Request for Proposal (RFP) as part of the Competitive Proposal Method, the prospective contractors will be required to submit a schedule which is then evaluated for selection. Currently, the project is anticipated to take 2 to 2-1/2 years once construction begins. As part of the RFP, the proposer would be allowed to submit an alternative schedule in which they could suggest an accelerated schedule. By allowing the contractor to submit a proposal based on the schedule they have put together, the City will be getting the best value, as it emphasizes non-price factors that align with project objectives, reducing risk and saving costs. This project is currently scheduled for council award in spring 2019, with construction beginning shortly after that. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT There are two alternatives for bidding the construction phase of the Boones Ferry Project at this point in the project: 1. Follow traditional low-bid procedures, basing selection solely on price. This approach may or may not result in overall lower costs. 2. Authorize staff to pursue the competitive proposal process that allows for selection of the contractor based on qualifications, experience, and costs. This approach allows for the City to select a contractor with strong qualifications for meeting the needs of a complex project, and higher potential for a commitment to a community partnership. The decision to authorize the competitive proposal process does not have an immediate fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 18-47 authorizing the use of the competitive proposal bidding method for Boones Ferry Road— Phase 1. ATTACH M ENTS 1. Resolution 18-47, with Exhibit A- Findings for an Exception from Competitive Bidding 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 18-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT USING THE COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL PROCESS OF CONTRACTING IN LIEU OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE BOONES FERRY ROAD— PHASE 1 PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego acts as the local contract review board for the City, and in that capacity has authority to exempt certain contracts from the competitive bidding requirements of ORS Chapter 279C; and WHEREAS, ORS 279C.335(2) and ORS 279C.400 provides a process for exempting certain contracts from competitive bidding and authorizes the selection of a contractor through the request for proposal ("RFP") method of solicitation and construction as an alternative to traditional competitive bidding, pursuant to OAR 137-049-0130, -620, -640, and -650; and WHEREAS, the findings ("Findings") in Exhibit A to this Resolution address the criteria of ORS 279C.335(2): (a) The exemption is unlikely to encourage favoritism in awarding public improvement contracts or substantially diminish competition for public improvement contracts; and (b) Awarding a public improvement contract under the exemption will likely result in substantial cost savings and other substantial benefits to the contracting agency; and WHEREAS,the draft Findings were made available to the public 14 days before the public hearing on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the Boones Ferry Road — Phase 1 project should be constructed by the competitive proposal method of contracting. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS; 1. The City Council adopts the Findings in Exhibit A to this Resolution. 2. Based upon the Findings, the City Council concludes that the exemption of the construction contract from competitive bidding, and the use of the alternative competitive proposal method of contracting, will promote competition, will not encourage favoritism, and is likely to result in substantial cost savings and other substantial benefits to the City. 3. The contract for construction of the Boones Ferry Road — Phase 1 project is exempted from competitive bidding, and the contractor shall be selected by the competitive proposal method in accordance with the City's public contracting rules and the process described in the Findings. 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. Adopted this 6th day of November, 2018, by the City of Lake Oswego City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 Findings Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 279C.335 requires competitive bidding of public improvement contracts unless specifically exempted from competitive bidding. Under ORS 279C.335(2), a local contract review board (Lake Oswego City Council, in this instance) may exempt certain public improvement contracts from competitive bidding based on the following: a. The exemption is unlikely to encourage favoritism in awarding public improvement contracts or substantially diminish competition for public improvement contracts. b. Awarding a public improvement contract under the exemption will likely result in substantial cost savings and other substantial benefits to the contracting agency. In approving the findings under ORS 279C.335(2)(b),the Council shall consider the type, cost and the amount of the contract and,to the extent applicable to the particular public improvement contract, as outlined in ORS 279C.335(2)(b)(A-N). The traditional bidding method for contractor procurement is low-bid, which primarily considers cost quote.An alternative contracting process may be used that scores contractors based on weighted scoring criteria and cost. Alternative contracting processes that weigh criteria other than cost have proven to be advantageous for the state and other local agencies on complex capital projects, resulting in assurance that the overall project goals may be considered and proposers evaluated on all criteria, not just cost. The highest scoring proposer based on all evaluation criteria is then identified.The experience from the state and other local agencies is that this process has resulted in the selection of a contractor with experience and capability to assure the overall success of the project than would otherwise occur in a typical low bid scenario. The LOTWP project also did not use the traditional low-bid process—a request for qualifications/ request for bids process was used, where pre-qualified highly- qualified and experienced bidders would provide final bids. For the reasons set forth more fully below, it is recommended that the contractor be selected by utilizing the competitive proposal process in accordance with ORS 279C.400 to solicit and award the public improvement contract for construction of Work Order 183—Boones Ferry Road—Phase I project. BACKGROUND The Boones Ferry Road—Phase 1 project is a roadway improvement project that will reconstruct the entire roadway section from south of Madrona Street to north of the Oakridge Road/Reese Road Intersection, including a signalized intersection at Lanewood Street. The improvements will include a new roadway section, improved storm drainage and stormwater quality facilities, new and upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, street lights, sidewalks, bike lanes, left turn lanes, center medians, and will underground franchise utilities. Constructing all of these improvements on a Major Arterial roadway makes this the most complex roadway project ever undertaken by the City. This complexity will require a qualified contractor that has displayed the skill set on previous projects of similar magnitude and complexity, as well as the ability to identify alternate approaches to value engineer and potentially reduce overall costs and/or schedule. Typically the City would use a "low-bidder" approach to award a construction contract and only cost of 1- Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 the project would be considered. However, if an exemption is granted and the competitive proposal process is allowed to be used,the contractor would be required to submit extensive information on past project experience, an organized and thoughtful project approach for this effort, innovative ideas on how to save time and money, and also details on how to interact with the local businesses and general public. This type of information would then be used by the City's selection team to evaluate each contractor. The Request for Proposal method is a common method to solicit consultants; this will be the first construction project to go through a competitive proposal process. The City has entered into other types of alternative bidding (e.g. CM/GC, RFQ/RFB). The competitive proposal process can be viewed as a contractor prequalification and bidding wrapped up into one process, and is referred to as a "best value" approach for contractor selection. FINDINGS Pursuant to ORS 279C.335,the following findings justify an exemption from OAR 137-049-0130 for the solicitation of a contractor for the Boones Ferry Road—Phase 1 project by competitive "best value" proposal. 1. The exemption is unlikely to encourage favoritism in awarding public improvement contracts or substantially diminish competition for public involvement contracts. (ORS 279C.335(2)(a)) The City will award the contract through an open and advertised competitive proposal process. The alternative procurement method is open to all interested contractors, including those typically participating in the traditional low bid procurement process. Favoritism will not play a role in the selection of the contractors. Selection will be conducted through an open and advertised Request for Proposal (RFP) process and the evaluation criteria will be stated in the RFP. All qualified firms will be invited to submit proposals. The City of Lake Oswego will advertise a RFP notice in the DailyJournal of Commerce in order to provide project solicitation information to all interested contractors. Proposers will be evaluated based on clearly stated criteria. A selection committee comprised of the consultant construction managers and experienced City of Lake Oswego staff will perform the evaluation, with written scoring based on the evaluation criteria.There will be an opportunity for proposers to protest the scoring of proposals per OAR 137-049-0450. 2. Substantial cost savings and other benefits(ORS 279C.335(2)(b)). The exemption to the low-bid competitive process will likely result in a substantial cost savings and other benefits to the City and community,with consideration of the following factors required by OAR 137-049-0630 and ORS 279.335(2)(b): A. How many persons are available to bid; A publicly advertised competitive proposal process will be utilized to solicit interest from qualified contractors; granting the exemption does not decrease the opportunity or ability for any qualified contractor to submit a proposal. B. The construction budget and projected operating costs for the completed public 2- Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 improvement; The construction phase for the Boones Ferry Road—Phase 1 project is currently estimated to be approximately$23 million. This cost includes construction management and City staff time as well as estimated construction costs. The construction budget will not be adjusted due to the alternate bidding method. However cost savings and schedule acceleration may be identified by the contractor during the proposal period,when utilizing the alternative solicitation method. By selecting a qualified contractor based on evaluation criteria that addresses the overall success of the project, including cost,the City will be able to select the "best value" proposer to work through the construction timeline, balancing the identified community interests and desires in completing the improvements efficiently, safely, and within budget. C. Public benefits that may result from granting the exemption; As previously mentioned, the proposers will be required to provide a proposal that responds to established scoring criteria. Outlined criteria will provide a chance for proposers to describe how they have dealt with working on similar projects in regards to schedule reduction, public outreach, and utility relocation. Importantly, construction of the various segments has the potential to cause significant disruption to businesses, residents, and the traveling public if the construction is not managed exceptionally well. Therefore, selection of an experienced, cooperative, and solution-oriented contractor who will coordinate and execute construction of this project in a safe, proficient, and expedient manner will greatly benefit the public. Experienced contractors also have the knowledge to be able to offer value engineered solutions leading to a better value for the public.The public will also benefit from improved quality of the finished product by having an experienced contractor implement the improvements. D. Whether value engineering techniques may decrease the cost of the public improvement; Utilization of the alternative bidding method for contractor selection will provide the proposer the opportunity to propose cost reducing or value engineering options that will be beneficial to the community and City. The contractor may elect to identify these options to stand out from other proposers and increase their respective score. Upon selection the City would then have the option to negotiate the proposal's cost component, and potentially decrease the cost of the public improvement. The traditional low-bidder method of contracting has no requirement or incentive to value engineer the design. The contractor may identify value engineering opportunities during the bidding process, however,the bidder would not be incentivized to communicate those to the City. This approach typically results in early and increased change orders, requiring fee baseline increases, and results in a financial benefit to the contractor and/or delay to the project. Either way, it is an increased risk to the City and often delays to the project. E. The cost and availability of specialized expertise that is necessary for the public 3- Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 improvement; The construction of the project includes work that will require a contracting team with a depth of knowledge and experience, including but not limited to: stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, landscaping, tree removal,traffic control management, earth moving, water distribution, asphalt paving, utility relocation, traffic signal and illumination, and other typical construction expertise associated with constructing a major transportation corridor. The selection of a contracting team with specialized expertise to construct the improvements will increase the likelihood of the project being completed on or ahead of schedule, and resulting in lower costs and increased benefit to the community. The ability to consider expertise, experience, and other factors in the contractor selection is integral to the competitive proposal process, but is not part of the traditional low bid process. F. Any likely increases in public safety; The construction of the Project is very complex, requiring a contractor with expertise to manage an array of challenges and maintain a safe work environment for personnel and the travelling public. The contract documents include best practices and standards that ensure safety for both pedestrians and the traveling public. However,the ability to execute contract documents and maintain a safe work zone typically takes oversight from a team of experienced and knowledgeable contractor and subcontractors working in unison with good communication. The ability to coordinate all the intricacies of the project would be especially challenging to an inexperienced or narrowly focused team. This project is very complicated and will require on- going coordination with City of Lake Oswego staff,the construction manager,franchise utilities, emergency service providers,the community, inspectors, and others. The community will be best served by a well experienced contractor who has worked on projects of similar or greater complexity that require similar levels of coordination and communication to a multitude of stakeholders. G. Whether granting the exemption may reduce risks to the contracting agency,the state agency or the public that are related to the public improvement; The risks to the City in any construction project are the quality, cost, and schedule of the work. The greatest reduction in risk comes by allowing the City to consider critical elements of experience, schedule, and cost H. Whether granting the exemption will affect the sources of funding for the public improvement; The exemption would have no effect on the project funding sources. I. Whether granting the exemption will better enable the contracting agency to control the impact that market conditions may have on the cost or time necessary to complete the public improvement; The competitive proposal process will enable the City to control the impact of market conditions 4- Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 by allowing the contractor to propose a reduced schedule and/or value engineering, prior to the contract being executed. J. Whether granting the exemption will better enable the contracting agency to address the size and technical complexity of the public improvement; Construction of a project like Boones Ferry Road—Phase 1 is very complex,with improvements including a complicated segmented construction sequence, highly coordinated scheduling, franchise utility relocation coordination, and dynamic traffic control. To ensure the safety of the public and to coordinate with business owners, a project this complex requires technical expertise, knowledge, and experience, all of which can be factored into the competitive proposal process. The selection of a contractor with demonstrated experience and success in implementing similar projects will result in a substantially lower risk to the City because it increases the likelihood of the project being completed on budget,with fewer construction delays and change orders. All of this can result in a lower cost and increased benefit to the community. The RFP process will take into account each contactor's past performance and technical knowledge based on the quality of previous projects as well as the technical complexity of the project. K. Whether the public improvement involves new construction or renovates or remodels an existing structure; The Boones Ferry Road—Phase 1 project consists of both new construction and renovation/rehabilitation of the roadway. Improvements will include the construction of a new roadway section including sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaped medians, illumination, signals, and utility relocation (undergrounding). The complexity of the project is increased by the fact that this roadway is classified as a major arterial and the project will need to be completed while it remains open for use. L. Whether public improvement will be occupied or unoccupied during construction; The project team has developed a staging plan that would require the project to be done in three segments. The alternative bidding method would allow the contractor to evaluate the proposed staging order and propose an alternative that may reduce schedule, and/or cost. However, it will be required that the roadway remain open (occupied) by keeping one open lane in each direction with a two-way left turn lane. When work is being done in the median,the two-way left turn lane will not be required. M. Whether the public improvement will require a single phase of construction work or multiple phases of construction work to address specific project conditions; The project will be advertised as one phase with multiple segments for construction. The scoring criteria will allow each respective contractor to recommend the best approach to execute the three segments. 5- Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 N. Whether the contacting agency or state agency has,or has retained under contract,and will use contracting agency or state agency personnel,consultants and legal counsel that have necessary expertise and substantial experience in alternative contracting methods to assist in developing the alternative contracting method that the contracting agency or state agency will use to award the public improvement contract and to help negotiate, administer and enforce the terms of the public improvement contract. Although the City has not used the competitive solicitation proposal type of alternate contracting method for construction contracts before, City staff has experience in soliciting and negotiating engineering services contracts through the use of RFPs, and alternative solicitation methods of CM/GC and RFQ/RFP. Soliciting proposals from construction consultant specifically, and consultants generally, is very similar to the proposed alternative proposal method. The City has also contracted with the knowledgeable staff at Otak, Inc.for preconstruction contract management, which includes the selection of a contractor via the competitive proposal method. Staff also investigated use of the "best value" solicitation methodology used by the state and other local agencies, and throughout the country. This approach has a track record of being highly successful for use on complex projects such as Boones Ferry Road—Phase 1. 6- Exhibit A to Resolution 18-47 � � ENGINEERING DEPT � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� — . . o m e i ive ro osa N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 8 �A � �� F�- n- - � �� .. . � � � �, w . , ,, �- . °��cor� Adopt Resolution 18-47 Special Procurement Process to use Competitive Proposal Bidding Method for Construction �� a �, ;: ,, �� - � � �U � o � °�� Pro ' ect Re inements J • Extensive underground utility conflicts • PGE, 8 Communication companies, and City services • Fi na I izi ng waysides • Modified mid- block pedestrian crossings twice �� a �, ;: ,, �� - � � �U � o � °�� Pr ' D i I o e ct eta s 1 Boones Ferry Ro�d - T�pical �ection - View facing Nortf� �- r .r- .. ,. - '�� f ""�':c''• . Median is either storr�water ' -,� , or ian�scape planter ��°�ti'4` de�ending an locatian r� . ,° ' ,r,�� .� • "�'� v } '� 4 �' t.�.�, �.� � ��,,� Stormwater i>�� .9 - -�� anter Landscape planter �� ,, � � :�': ��.. , , „ - --- _ . t - �� 1e�ian with at gra�e .� - . � � -. ./,'�i> `� .y- � r� �' �"`' �4J .-�A .• � � � �]��ilt2�' �� ` ��. - � �, -{ � ��`. !f,� !�� -- . _.:� ��,�r,,l ,. � '� !� �—r�`3f' r� F —. .�__ __ �`_ ---�..� '_--_y 'I �i f� t�� t�� .._'__ �� a�o . . ..—.� 5.�� 3.5' S 11' �1' f�ledian 1Nidth 1�' 11' � 3.5' S.5' Sidewalk Bike Travel Lane Travel Lane Va�ies Trave! Lane Travel Lane Bike Sidewalk O��` � � � �; �, �� - � � tU � � � �� Legend ��,y� �R� . IcanicTrr:c - r � -� Lake Grove 7f0SIiG3n .. ��-Riiit:iing ,'� SrAeliigFi f;•.,a� +'�,°... - —Stairse[ � Fi*e Hyclr�nl �".:•T:•', �--- -- �� /y "apBC18I P3VIf1SJ(GORf3E[CJ R u��d��LJ S+gnaf ARn with Lig-��; . ~��- Spacial Pa�ing(6rick+ L � �� CurhRamc � .�� p�,ten�ialRa3aininyWall Starrtmater Pfan[In�,� _ H=deslrq?n E3uilnn � � -—� � � Prc�ect S[alianing Line and Num6er .�iG3�B: 1'� _�0'� � Can�;erausTree I dnfC �� I]eadua�s Free �� L�- lloland Plan!mg { ��`'�u.. � i�'4 Tree i � � � f �� In[ersec[ion%av�ng(Unde[erminad] ,r �'�:q� S� l�onic �, ��'� � :,k+'�� ilyilti��ysy{lfi��{ 3 AaA Ben�h� � Tree ` `� + ;ti Trash Gan � � , � S �� Y :"�7�'�' 'F'k'� .rJ. � I � � .,. , ��'� ____ - � � � � �.�.. r; � A. �1�� I S�.!+�J S'�fa I � i � , -��!Tti:�'r.'',� I I - - _ ,�' _� ,.. � __ �=y :�"�: 7,yi_ _, .-� � I �I � .L '~_ .r�,^�,. i2 r�;W s � � � _•L � � ,� -� - T � ;L�:.� _� F �� —._ �.7,T,r.'r i.�i•:: _ �a . ._I r��_ .i11';!i1 h�� yi� --., _ __ �r -- �'- - - - �� _ � � , ��. Mldhl�ck Cr�ssing - � ' � ■ - � + .� � . .. ..... - - - a � • _ � � ;�� ., -.- , --_�-__ � �1_ � ` _ - � � � .� .�"�' � � �� - _ _ ,f_:� ;*! � -� �� -- ��_• .�;�- - t�=,'� , __�— - �-='�: _ �� — - - - _ -rf _�_ . ' - ' 1 _ ' -_:, �:. - :;;� � •.�ti� , ', - �-�: _ .�-_ . - � �. ��- . ::. , - � /%�:��i� 'r . •'1�,•.''. _ - ��': _ f. , � :�wY �J ' . r'.:l11S1' .. . !. _.. - _ I - ....r,.�;r = � � IC�nIC _ I _� . , �� ,-. _ . L� '_ -.�-' . _. . :' — i i � ' -' - -- --�-�-- � _�;��,�. .��r;:i`;:ry.. r, I'•ti , Bike'' , � � � ,_. �—�.:_.�`f f��`". __ - --- �� Tree �- � �� _� F...:.._. i - - F�ack -J!I__-�._�__�--=� �7 - ' � - - - - --=�-Trash 5eatwall y --i 1� i• -� �7 B;ke Car� _ Racks 3 ADA Ben - � � Drinking Fountain � i Starbucks � i-. � °�� Cost Esti mate 95% Design Estimate Current Estimate Design $ 4,542,000.00 $ 4,614,000.00 Property Acquisition $ 3,500,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 Staging Area N/A $ 2,250,000.00 Construction* $ 17,390,000.00 $ 20,904,000.00 Construction Management $ 2,858,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 Project Management and Administration $ 1,800,000.00 $ 1,800,000.00 Total $ 30,090,000.00 $ 36,568,000.00 * Adjusted O��` � � � �; �, �� - � � tU � � � �� h I Sc e u e • CM & EOR Contract Award — December 4 • ODOT Review & A roval— mid - December pp • Advertise & Selection — Ja n ua r — Ma rch y • CouncilAward — A ril Ma p Y • Construction be i ns — Su m mer � �� a � ;: ,, �� . � � �U � o � °�� Com etitive Pro osal Selection for p p Construction • Benefits — RFP requires contractors to respond to various pre-determined selection criteria — Committed and Qualified contractors — Final selection is based on qualification criteria a n d cost �� o �, ; �, `�� 6 e st Va I u e � - � � �� o � °�� Com etitive Pro osal Selection for p p Construction • ODOT: I -84Sandy River — Jordan Road Project — Several benefits, including: • Providing a mechanism for agencies to obtain more value for their money • Reducing agency's risk, change orders, and cost overruns • Creating economic benefits to the public by inclusion of many entities in subcontracting and supply opportunities. �� o � ;: �, �'� � — — � c� . ��, � � Engineer s Est - $65.4 M, Best Value Award - $48.5 M � �� • • To a s O ect �ve : v � Adopt Resolution 18-47 Special Procurement Process to use Competitive Proposal Bidding Method for Construction �� a �, ;: ,, �� - � � �U � o � °�� uestions ? s _ .� . _ � � � �� _ � �� I � . . _ - - � � � , � � ,k � �� ;k . boon ��f� rr r� ' � �t . � r �� °� � � �� ]� � J � � i nfo�� o � r� e�ferr}� p r�j �ct . � r� # � oor� esferryproj e �t 8.2 a�tiA .��s CnUNCl1 REP�RT � , �,1 �� n V ❑ °REGar� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Ordinance 2797, 2018 Annual Code Amendments (LU 18-0035) DATE: October 30, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 ACTION Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2797, amending LOC Chapter 50 for the purpose of clarifying and updating various provisions. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to enact Ordinance 2797 and adopt findings for LU 18-0035. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) are part of the City's on-going effort to ensure the regulations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and make them more usable for residents, developers, and City staff by correcting errors, eliminating text ambiguities and redundancies, and clarifying code language. Additionally, the amendments include provisions that will: • Apply setbacks consistently on lots zoned high density (R-0, R-2 and R-3) when they abut lots that will be zoned low density (R-7.5, R-10 and R-15) upon annexation into the City. • Replace confusing terminology in the solar standards: replace references to "exempt" vegetation and "non-exempt" vegetation" with "solar friendly" vegetation and "solar unfriendly" vegetation, to be consistent with the Solar Friendly Trees Report in LOC Appendix 50.11.004-D (5). • Delete the Solar Access Permit standard. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 • Amend the applicability of the Solar Access standard to apply to subdivisions, but not to partitions or lot line adjustments. • Identify appropriate exceptions to the utility undergrounding requirement. The proposed amendments (Ordinance 2797) were the subject of a Planning Commission (Commission) work session on July 23, 2018 and Commission public hearings on October 8 and October 22, 2018. The Public Review Draft of the proposed ordinance was circulated for public comments between August 30 and September 27, 2018. For the purposes of review, staff encourages the Council to review the staff report dated August 30, 2018 (Exhibit D-2) and the code amendments (Attachment 2, dated August 30, 2018, to Exhibit A-1.) The Council members were invited to contact staff with any questions prior to the hearing, ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The proposed amendments may indirectly have a positive fiscal impact, as they include some code streamlining. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve LU 18-0035 (with Code Text dated 8/30/18), and enact Ordinance 2797. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1 Draft Ordinance 2797, 08/24/18 Attachment 1: Draft City Council Findings Attachment 2: Draft Code Text, 10/30/18 B. Findin�s, Conclusions and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, 10/22/18 (Please note that Attachment 2 referenced in the Findings is not included. Refer to Attachment 2 dated 10/30/18 of Draft Ordinance 2797—Exhibit A-1). C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes— Draft Excerpt, 10/08/18 C-2 Planning Commission Minutes— Draft Excerpt, 10/22/18 D. Staff Reports D-1 Planning Commission Memo dated 07/12/18 (due to size, attachments are not included with this staff report, but can be viewed on the project webpage) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 D-2 Planning Commission Staff Report, 08/30/18 D-3 Planning Commission Staff Memo, 10/04/18 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials F-1 Solar Friendly Trees Report, dated April 1987, LOC Appendix 50.11.004-D F-2 Appendices to the Solar Friendly Trees Report F-3 E-Mail from Jennifer ponnelly, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, 09/25/18 G. Letters G-1 E-Mail from Leah Puhlman, 10/22/18 Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 18-0035 then press "Enter": https://www.ci.oswe�o.or.us/al I-prolects 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city EXHIBIT A DRAFT 08/24/18 ORDINANCE NO. 2797 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING VARIOUS PROVISIONS (2018), INCLUDING INCREASING SETBACKS ON LOTS ZONED HIGH DENSITY WHEN THEY ABUT LOTS THAT WILL BE ZONED LOW DENSITY UPON ANNEXATION; SOLAR CODE TREE TERMINOLOGY; SOLAR ACCESS PERMIT REMOVAL; UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING EXEMPTIONS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 18-0035). WHEREAS, through the application of the Community Development Code and related code provisions, the public and Planning Division staff have found that some sections of the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) could be improved by removing ambiguous and conflicting language, correcting provisions, adding clarifying text which is consistent with past interpretations, and updating the Community Development Code; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 18-0035), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by�*��',^+"�^��^" type and adding new text shown in double underlined tvpe, in Attachment 2. (Sections or subsections within LOC Chapter 50 that are omitted in Attachment 2, and not marked for deletion or addition, are neither amended nor deleted by this Ordinance.) Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. As provided in Section 35C of Chapter Vll of the Lake Oswego Charter, this ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth day following enactment. Enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the _ day of , 2018. Ordinance 2797 (LU 18-0035) PAGE 1 DRAFT 08/24/18 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney Ordinance 2797 (LU 18-0035) PAGE 2 ATTACHMENT 1 LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LU 18-0035 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING VARIOUS PROVISIONS (2018), INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5 INCREASING SETBACKS ON LOTS ZONED HIGH DENSITY WHEN THEY ABUT LOTS THAT WILL BE 6 ZONED LOW DENSITY UPON ANNEXATION; SOLAR CODE TREE TERMINOLOGY; SOLAR � ACCESS PERMIT REMOVAL; UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING EXEMPTIONS, AND g ADOPTING FINDINGS. 9 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS 10 This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on the recommendation of the 11 Planning Commission for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) 12 to amend various sections relating to flag lots and access lanes. The proposed amendments are 13 to: 14 15 LOC 50.04.001— Dimensional Table (High Density) 16 LOC 50.04.003 — Exceptions, Projections and Encroachments 1� LOC 50.04.004—Solar Adjustments 18 LOC 50.05.004— Downtown Redevelopment Design District LOC 50.05.005 —West Lake Grove Design District 19 LOC 50.05.012— Uplands R-10 Overlay District 20 LOC 50.06.003 —Circulation and Connectivity 21 LOC 50.06.004—Site Design 22 LOC 50.06.007—Solar Access 23 LOC 50.06.008— Utilities 24 LOC 50.07.003 — Review Procedures LOC 50.07.004—Additional Submission Requirements 25 LOC 50.10.003 — Definitions 26 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 1— FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 18-0035) DAVID D.POWELL LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEY�S OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AvENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 LOC 50.11.004 Appendix D, Lake Oswego Master Plant List 2 HEARINGS 3 The Planning Commission held public hearings and considered this application at its 4 meetings on October 8 and October 22, 2018. The Commission adopted its Findings, 5 Conclusion and Order recommending approval of LU 18-0035 on October 22, 2018. 6 The City Council held a public hearing and considered the Planning Commission's � recommendation on November 6, 2018. 8 9 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 10 A. City of Lake Oswe�o Comprehensive Plan: 11 Community Culture—Civic Engagement, Policies 1, 2, 4 and 5 Land Use Planning— Land Use Administration, Policy D-1 12 Inspiring Spaces and Places: Goal 1, Policy 1(a) 13 g• City of Lake Oswe�o Community Development Code: 14 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.07.003.16.b Criteria for Legislative Decision 15 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 16 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 17 FINDINGS AND REASONS 18 The City Council incorporates the staff report dated August 30, 2018 and the staff inemo 19 dated October 4, 2018 for LU 18-0035, with all exhibits, and the Findings and Reasons in the 20 Planning Commission's October 22, 2018 Findings, Conclusions and Order, as support for the 21 City Council's decision. 22 CONCWSION 23 The City Council concludes that LU 18-0035, as recommended by the Planning 24 Commission, complies with all applicable criteria and should be approved. The Council also 25 concludes that proposed Ordinance 2797, which implements LU 18-0035, should be enacted. 26 ATTACHMENT 1/PAGE 2— FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 18-0035) DAVID D.POWELL LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEY�S OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AvENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) DRAFT 10/30/18 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2797) LU 18-0035 � � - � � . . The following dimensional regulations apply to the base zones as identified in each table.These dimensions may have exceptions or modifications as identified in LOC 50.04.003.1,Additional Dimensional Exceptions. 3. RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES //////////////////////// e. Yard Setback—Additional Standards //////////////////////// iii. Abutting Low Density Residential Where a lot zoned R-0, 2, or 3 abuts a lot zoned R-6, 7.5, 10, or 15;or abuts a lot that would be zoned R-7.5, 10 or 15 upon annexation into the City per LOC 50.01.004.5, the building on the R- 0, 2, or 3 lot shall be set back from the common line a distance equal to the required yard setback for the zone in Table 50.04.001-13 or the height of the primary building on the R-0, 2, or 3 lot,whichever is greater. iv. Special Setbacks for Steeply Sloped Lots On steeply sloped lots,the minimum required front yard setback for detached dwellings shall be 18 ft. Item 1 (P): On lots zoned R-0, R-2, and R-3 (High Density Residential), setbacks are increased where there is an abutting lot that is low-density. However, under current code the zoning of abutting unincorporated properties is not considered. This standard should be expanded to apply where unincorporated lots, upon annexation, would be zoned low-density(R-7.5, R-10, or R-15) [No reason to include R-6 in the "upon annexation" lots because there is no County land in FAN-FH.] The cross reference is to LOC 50.01.004.5, Comprehensive Plan Map Designations Automatically Applied Upon Annexations. This amendment was moved from amendments reviewed in 2017 because it requires Measure 56 (ORS 227.186) noticing, and can be bundled with other amendments in this package that require Measure 56 noticing. � i� � � � • • • � � . � • � 1.ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONAL EXCEPTIONS The following section may include exceptions to the dimensional standards of LOC 50.04.001. //////////////////////// LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 1 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 6.SPECIAL DETERMINATION OF YARDS AND YARD REQUIREMENTS;SETBACK PLANE EXEMPTION //////////////////////// b. Through Lots Unless the prevailing front yard pattern on abutting lots on the same block face indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all street frontages. Where one of the front yards that would normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern,the City Manager may waive the requirements for the normal front yard and substitute therefor a special yard requirement Iwhich shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on abuttin��r�lots. //////////////////////// Item 2(M):The term "adjacent" is replaced with "abutting"to be consistent with the term "abutting" in the first sentence (which itself was a clarification in the 2017 Amendments, Ordinance 2783). � � - � � - • � � 1. EXEMPTIONS FROM SOLAR DESIGN STANDARD A development is exempt from the requirements of LOC 50.06.007.1.d, Solar Design Standard, if the reviewing authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to the site. A development is partially exempt from LOC 50.06.007.1.d to the extent the reviewing authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to a corresponding portion of the site. If a partial exemption is granted for a given development,the remainder of the development shall comply with the solar access requirements. a. Slopes The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is sloped 20%or more in a direction greater than 45°east or west of true south, based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor. b. Off-Site Shade The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is within the shadow pattern of Ioff-site features, such as but not limited to structures, topography, or+�e�-e�e��solar-unfriendly vegetation, which will remain after development occurs on the site from which the shade is originating. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 2 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 i. Shade from an existing or approved off-site dwelling in a single-family residential zone and from topographic features is assumed to remain after development of the site. ii. Shade from an off-site structure in a zone other than a single-family residential zone is assumed to be the shadow pattern of the existing or approved development thereon or the shadow pattern that would result from the largest structure allowed at the closest setback on adjoining land, whether or not that structure now exists. iii. Shade from off-site vegetation is assumed to remain after development of the site if: the trees that cause it are situated in a required setback; or they are part of a developed area, public park, or legally reserved open space; or they are in or separated from the developable remainder of a parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to a development permit issued pursuant to this Code. iv. Shade from other off-site sources is assumed to be shade that exists or that will be cast by development for which applicable development permits have been approved on the date a complete application for the development is filed. c. On-Site Shade The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is requested, is: i. Within the shadow pattern of on-site features such as, but not limited to, structures and topography which will remain after the development occurs; or Iii. Contains�a�-e*e��solar-unfriendly trees at least 30 ft.tall and more than six in. in diameter measured four ft. above the ground which have a crown cover over at least 80%of the site or relevant portion.The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled survey or an aerial photograph. If granted, the exemption shall be approved subject to the condition that the applicant preserve at least 50%of the trees that cause the shade that warrants the exemption. The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the County Recorder binding the applicant to comply with this requirement.The City shall be made a party of any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this section.The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. 2.ADJUSTMENTS TO SOLAR DESIGN STANDARD The reviewing authority shall reduce the percentage of lots that must comply with LOC 50.06.007.1.d, Solar Design Standard,to the minimum extent necessary if it finds the applicant has shown one or more of the following site characteristics apply: //////////////////////// LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 3 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 c. Existing Shade I "�;�Solar-unfriendly trees at least 30 ft.tall and more than six in. in diameter measured four ft. above the ground have a crown cover over at least 80% of the lot and at least 50%of the crown cover will remain after development of the lot.The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled survey of solar-unfriendly�ae�-e�er��trees on the site or using an aerial photograph. i. Shade from solar-unfriendly�e�-e�e�pp�trees is assumed to remain if: the trees are situated in a required setback; or they are part of an existing or proposed park, open space, or recreational amenity; or they are separated from the developable remainder of their parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to LOC 50.06.004, Site Design; and they do not need to be removed for a driveway or other development. ii. Also,to the extent the shade is caused by on-site trees or off-site trees on land owned by the applicant, it is assumed to remain if the applicant files in the office of the County Recorder a covenant binding the applicant to retain the trees causing the shade on the affected lots. 3. EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM SHADE POINT HEIGHT STANDARD The City Manager shall exempt a proposed structure or�e�-e�e�p�solar-unfriendly vegetation from LOC 50.06.007.2.c, Maximum Shade Point Height Standard,�,�L��9.^�T��e;��+t� °�� e�e�if the applicant shows that one or more of the conditions in this section exist, based on plot plans or plats, corner elevations or other topographical data, shadow patterns, suncharts or photographs, or other substantial evidence submitted by the applicant. a. Exempt Lots When created the lot was subject to LOC 50.04.004.1 and 50.04.004.2, LOC 50.06.007.1.a through Ide, a--ia�L��B.^�T�d, and was not subject to the provisions of LOC 50.06.007.1.e, Protection from Future Shade. b. Pre-Existing Shade IThe structure or applicable�a�-e�e�p�solar-unfriendly vegetation will shade an area that is shaded by one or more of the following: i. An existing or approved building or structure; ii. A topographic feature; Iiii. A�e�-e�e�p�solar-unfriendly tree that will remain after development of the site. It is assumed a tree will remain after development if it: LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 4 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 (1) Is situated in a required building setback; (2) Is part of a developed area or landscaping required by this Code, a public park or landscape strip, or legally reserved open space; (3) Is in or separated from the developable remainder of a parcel by an undevelopable area or feature; or (4) Is on the applicant's property and not affected by the development. A duly executed covenant also can be used to preserve trees causing such shade. c. Slope The site has an average slope that exceeds 20% in a direction greater than 45° east or west of true south based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor. d. Insignificant Benefit IThe proposed structure or_ solar-unfriendly ve�etation shades one or more of the following: i. An undevelopable area; or ii. The wall of an unheated space, such as a typical garage; or iii. Less than 20 sq.ft. of south-facing glazing. e. Public Improvement The proposed structure is a publicly owned improvement. Item 3 (M):All references to "non-exempt"vegetation are changed to "solar-unfriendly"for better reading and to be consistent with Appendix 50.11.004.5, Solar Friendly Trees. Also references to Solar Access Permit are deleted, since Solar Access Permit section is deleted (LOC 50.07.004.9). Item 4(P): Two references to Solar Access Permit, LOC 50.07.004.9, are deleted because Solar Access Permit is proposed to be deleted in its entirety(see amendments under LOC 50.07.004.9, below). LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE S OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 � i � i� � • • � • • � � 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this section,the Downtown Redevelopment Design District, is to guide the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego in a manner that creates a feeling of vitality and sense of place in order to attract private investment and redevelopment of the area and create a community center that reflects and enhances the character of the City of Lake Oswego. //////////////////////// 12.STREET,ALLEY AND SIDEWALK DESIGN Street, sidewalk and alley design shall safely and efficiently provide for vehicular and pedestrian travel while enhancing village character through compliance with the following design standards. These standards shall apply in addition to any other City requirements for street, alley or sidewalk design. In the event of a conflict,the provisions of this section shall control. a. r,,....,i�.,..,.....,�+M �.,....�.-..M..��c..., oi-.� . . , �� , ��f+l, c+r,,,,+.- fr.,.,-, nnn+„ iiQii n,,.,h��,,.- � ��.-.-�F�,,.J � „��„�r„r.- a�. "A" Avenue //////////////////////// Ibs. Intersection Design //////////////////////// Ic�. Sidewalks //////////////////////// Ide. Alleys //////////////////////// ;. 13wFe� ^^'��^^s��tilit�es I Ir�l�r�.,.- .-h-.II h., .,I��.,.J � .,.J.,.-..r.,��.,.J �.�b..,r.,F.,�.-�hl., eg. Angle Parking //////////////////////// LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 6 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 Item 5(M): Compliance with Comprehensive Plan/DRD District [LOC 50.05.004.12.a]: The Transportation chapter of the old Comp Plan included a section titled "Major Street System Policies." The new Connected Communities chapter of the Comp Plan does not. In fact,the updated Comp Plan does not include regulatory policies so the requirement to "comply with the Comp Plan policies" is meaningless. These sections are deleted for streamlining. Staff reviewed the FAN-FH Neighborhood Plan and could identify no regulatory policies in its Street Design and Traffic section (the Neighborhood Plans are adopted by reference into the Comp Plan). Item 6(M): Section (f) is deleted because utility undergrounding requirements/exceptions are addressed in LOC 50.06.008, Utilities. 13. CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Purpose By compliance with the clear and objective standards of this article, the purpose of the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standard, to guide the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego in a manner that creates a village character with a feeling of vitality and sense of place in order to attract private investment and redevelopment of the area and create a community center that reflects and enhances the village character of the City of Lake Oswego, will be met. //////////////////////// g. Landscaping and Site Design Requirements i. Purpose The following standards are intended to ensure that landscaping and site design elements help create a "village character" by providing high-quality landscape elements. Landscaping should be designed to enhance building design, enhance public views and spaces, define the street, provide buffers (screening) and transitions, break up scale and proportion, and provide for a balance between shade and solar access. //////////////////////// �EIV. 1 I..dernr�..�..rl:..n r.F I l+:l�+:e� � r.J.,r..rl,��n.J�.,., �� 1,+ ., -,.-��.--,I h-,�.,.J � ��., � .,.J�+�.,n� �� k. Street,Alley and Sidewalk Design LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 7 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 Purpose: Street, sidewalk and alley design should safely and efficiently provide for vehicular and pedestrian travel while enhancing village character through compliance with the following design standards.These standards shall apply in addition to any other City requirements for street, alley or sidewalk design. In the event of a conflict,the provisions of this section shall control. I. r.,.,,.,1:�.,�e...:+1, r.,.,,.,rel,e.,��.,e ol�., n n . � n n � �hr ..h C�f�h C�r .,��fr�,Y,�, "A" +�, "Q" A" .-I-, ��F�.,.d -, .,II.,��., +i. "A" Avenue //////////////////////// Iii+. Intersection Design //////////////////////// Iiii�. Alleys //////////////////////// Iiv. Angle Parking //////////////////////// Item 5 (M): Compliance with Comprehensive Plan/DRD District [LOC 50.05.004.12.a]: The Transportation chapter of the old Comp Plan included a section titled "Major Street System Policies." The new Connected Communities chapter of the Comp Plan does not. In fact, the updated Comp Plan does not include regulatory policies so the requirement to "comply with the Comp Plan policies" is meaningless. These sections are deleted for streamlining. Staff reviewed the FAN-FH Neighborhood Plan and could identify no regulatory policies in its Street Design and Traffic section (the Neighborhood Plans are adopted by reference into the Comp Plan). Item 6(M): Section (xiv) is deleted because utility undergrounding requirements/exceptions are addressed in LOC 50.06.008, Utilities. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 8 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 � i � � � • • � � 4.STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE WLG DESIGN DISTRICT a. General Requirements Development which occurs within the West Lake Grove Design District shall create an aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Grove through the following design elements: i. Architecturally designed structures of high design quality that are in scale with the site, in proportion to similar buildings in the West Lake Grove Design District and which utilize a pleasing variety of harmonious earth and muted tone materials, colors, finishes and textures; ii. Conservation of mature Douglas fir trees and other significant trees to retain the landmark status imparted by these resources; iii. Orientation of building entrances shall conform to the provisions of LOC 50.06.001.5, Commercial, Industrial, and Multi-Family Development Standards for Approval; iv. Building design and orientation shall provide for effective screening and buffering of the subject properties from adjacent residential neighborhoods; and v. High quality designed landscapes involving native plant materials or those which have naturalized to the locale,which will grow to significant size and impart seasonal color and interest. //////////////////////// I�. �Qe��n��t�it�es �II .,��hl�� -,r.J .,r�.,-,+., ��I��.,�.,r.,��.,< <h-,II h., .,I-,�.,.J ��n.J.,r,,..,��n.J Ic�. Building Design //////////////////////// II�►. Street and Pathway Lighting //////////////////////// Im�.0utdoor Storage //////////////////////// Ine. Stormwater Management LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 9 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 //////////////////////// Item 6(M): Delete references to "undergrounding" because superfluous. Requirements are in Utilities, LOC 50.06.008. Subsections after have to be re-numbered. 9.CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE HOUSING STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL //////////////////////// d. Standards Applicable to the Entire WLG Design District i. Site Design Standards (1) Purpose Development which occurs within the West Lake Grove Design District shall achieve an aesthetically pleasing site and building design that: (a) Conserves mature Douglas fir trees and other significant trees in order to retain the landmark status imparted by these resources; (b) Through building design and orientation, provides effective screening and buffering of the subject properties from adjacent residential neighborhoods; (c) Through high quality designed landscapes involving native plant materials or those which have naturalized to the locale, plants will grow to significant size and impart seasonal color and interest; and (d) Incorporates landscape features which contribute to a unifying design theme and continuity within the West Lake Grove Design District, such as paving materials and textures, lighting, street furniture, signage and plant material selection, especially trees. //////////////////////// ,�. ��,�,..-,,.,.,.�,�;�..,.s��;�;t,,.� nii n��Hr,. -,�,� n.-�.,-,+„ ��*��*.,.-,,,-.,�,.,,.- .-ti.,�� H„ n�.,,.,,,� ��n,�,,.-,.,-„��n,� x+. Building Design //////////////////////// Ixi+. Street and Pathway Lighting //////////////////////// LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 10 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 Ixii+.Outdoor Storage //////////////////////// Ixiii�.Stormwater Management //////////////////////// Item 6(M): Delete references to "undergrounding" because superfluous. Requirements are in Utilities, LOC 50.06.008. Subsections after have to be re-numbered. � i � • � . � • � � . 1. PURPOSE The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that development in the overlay district promotes the unique character of the Uplands neighborhood as described in the Uplands Neighborhood Plan. 2.APPLICABILITY This section applies to lands within the Uplands R-10 Overlay District, as shown on Figure 50.05.012-A: Uplands R-10 Overlay District. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 11 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 Figure 50.05.012-A: Uplands R-10 Overlay District �G V ni�y_cnoo. 0 �KnRus Rr �a' t� i l� i�: �F;. o `n . 2 O = ..—_�.�.' � 9ui� � JiHIG45cND'JL .°•�� ti ��-� � � .u�.. ^P. � .._ r' N � fi � �oy Fws�an �{'.W,y _ Gdy.Y �3, ." I o\ y n Q saRu�eAoo<aaRK ' W� ^ .i.� Y. ��r I _ uee�� y� � I U r-nuis�EwrEa � �m n g'Yr'As a£ ,.... _ vaRic ocrc ��fb%'�s O �_�.i � � —— _—. Rc 4 1 �!_�.. h . . 'td Rnpe Kd �,. �c PaM_ x crer_ n�,�r, �� .... � � � �cirr- ��' �� w�K � � 6rtNUC� � . � ��Y` 0N� � �.FS . J�� C _'___ � uiy eoy �NU Hay EOgeRonl Re 1. onyFl� � �" � �o��^��, Uplands Neighborhood � �, T3n��Fn� �^� " �� Uplands R-10 Overlay District N ��c"��"'�r �� '"�"�� "'"�`"a °k`=I"a' Uplands Neighborhood Boundary � �� 0 o aoo soo i,soo �V Feet ��,t�.:�a " - 3. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STANDARDS To the extent that any requirement of this overlay imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as a regulation applicable to the residential low density zones,flag lots, or circulation and connectivity,this section shall prevail. 4. FRONT YARD SETBACK AVERAGING a. Applicability The front yard setback averaging required by this subsection 4 shall apply to lots with a lot depth greater than 120 ft. Exemption:Triangular lots and flag lots are exempt from the requirements of this subsection 4. b. Front Yard Setback Averaging Front yard setbacks shall conform to the averaging standards in Table 50.05.012-1. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 12 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 TABLE 50.05.012-1—FRONT YARD SETBACK AVERAGING Non-corner Lot Corner Lot Front Yard Average of the setbacks of Average of 25 ft. and the Setback [1][2] the closest buildings on the setback of the closest building (See Figure abutting lots on the same on the abutting lot on the 50.05.012-8) block face same block face Minimum Where the average is less than 25 ft.: Front Yard The minimum setback is 25 ft. Setback Where the average is more than 40 ft.: The minimum setback is 40 ft. [1] Abutting flag lots shall not be considered in determining the average. The setback of the next abutting non-flag lot shall apply. See Figure 50.05.012-B. [2] If the lot abuts a vacant lot, or there are no abutting lots on the same block face,the setback of the underlying zone shall apply. Figure 50.05.012-B Do Not Use Abutting lot to use for front setback averaging Abua�ng Flag Lot r — � 1 I 5ubject property --- � _ � � � � �_C_. B A Lof B = 1/acant ; ; Use 25 ft. No LotA '---' � i i � � A ` ; {Carrrer) � � C Use 25 ft. C J B 5. FLAG LOTS In addition to the standards in Sections 6 and 7 of LOC 50.05.012, the followin�standards apply to fla� lots. a. Only one flag lot may be created behind a non-flag lot. No flag lot may be created from an existing flag lot. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 13 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 b. Access Access lanes shall not extend or project through the flag lot to abutting property. c. Lot Configuration Requirements i. Determination of Front Yard The front yard of a flag lot is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street. d. Building and Site Design Standards i. Building Orientation There is no building orientation requirement. ii. Maximum Structure Hei�ht �—In no case shall the maximum hei�ht of structures established pursuant to LOC 50.07.007.2.e.iii exceed 30 feet. {�}(2) The additional hei�ht allowed pursuant to LOC 50.07.007.2.e.iii(4) and LOC 50.04.001.1.� is not permitted. iii. Setback Requirements The flag lot setback requirements in LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v. shall not apply within the Uplands R- 10 Overlay District.All setbacks shall be those established by this overlay and the underlying R- 10 zone. 6. LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS SURFACES a. No more than 50%of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. b. The area between the front lot line and the nearest edge of the building footprint shall not be covered by more than 30%of impervious surface. 7. STRUCTURE DESIGN a. Maximum Permitted Height The maximum permitted height for primary structures, regardless of slope, is 30 ft. b. Height—Additional Standards i. The additional height allowed pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.g is not permitted. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 14 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 c. Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards i. Except as set forth in LOC 50.06.001.2.e.ii,the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 ft. and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 6:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak. ii. Roof forms may penetrate into the side yard setback plane per LOC 50.06.001.2.e.i. 8. ON-SITE CIRCULATION—DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS ROADS a. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions Only one driveway access point shall be permitted along each lot frontage. Item 7(M):The Uplands R-10 Overlay is intended to protect the existing neighborhood character of primarily one and 1 %story houses. The overlay was also intended to prevent new"uphill" construction from looming over existing residences by prohibiting height increases for slope and roof projections. The overlay text is amended to clarify that the maximum height of 30 feet, the prohibition of the roof height exception, and the limitations on impervious surfaces apply to both regular lots and flag lots within the Uplands R-10 Overlay District. This amendment requires Measure 56 (ORS 227.186) noticing. � �. � � � • � � • 4.STREET CONNECTIVITY c. Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street //////////////////////// v. Access lanes may be used to serve up to threeeig#�dwelling unitss. T"^.,�"�" "^ �'^��^^^�'+^ //////////////////////// Item 8(M):The recent Flag Lot and Access Lane amendments limited access lanes to serving a maximum of three lots, and removed the requirement that access lanes be designed to connect to abutting properties. Therefore,the reference in the Street Connectivity Standard to access lanes that serve eight dwelling units is corrected. � i. � i� . LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 15 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 3. LIGHTING STANDARDS a. Applicability i. This section is applicable to all minor or major development which results in increased use of public and private streets, public pathways and accessways, or parking lots, and lots in the PF and PNA zones. ii. Temporary lighting for theatrical, television, and performance areas, and lights associated with special events are not subject to this section if no "development" occurs. b. Standards for Approval //////////////////////// iii. Outdoor Lighting in PF and PNA Zones //////////////////////// (a) All outdoor lighting shall comply with either the prescriptive option or the performance option, below.The applicant may be required to pay for the services of a qualified professional civil or electrical engineer to review such submittals and the cost thereof shall be an additional fee charged to the applicant. (i) Prescriptive Option If the lighting is to comply with this prescriptive option, the installed lighting shall meet all of the following requirements: //////////////////////// (ii) Performance Option If the lighting is to comply with this performance option, the proposed lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the following standards shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the City Engineer, and the City Engineer's decision shall be the final decision of the City: //////////////////////// (B) The maximum light level at any property line shall be no greater than the values in Table 50.06.004-4: Performance Method, as evidenced by a complete photometric analysis including horizontal illuminance of site and vertical illuminance on the plane facing the site up to the mounting height of the luminaire mounted highest above grade.The City Engineer may accept a photometric analysis report, demonstration or sample, or other satisfactory LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 16 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 confirmation that the luminaire meets the shielding requirements of Table 50.06.004-1: Maximum Wattage and Required Shielding. Luminaires shall not be mounted so as to permit aiming or use in any way other than the manner maintaining the shielding classification required herein. Exception 1: If the property line abuts a public right-of-way,the analysis may be performed at the property boundary across the public right-of-way from the site. G...-.,.,+�.,r �• If+h., -,h��++�r.. ., .,r�.,l, r��.,,,�l,� . . � „{{;,,;-,I .- .�,.-.J� ..f+4,.,� .,+..�., ..4,��4,+4,,, -,h��++�.�.., ,., .,r+., �� I.,�-,+,,.J +h., � .,�, 1�..4,+ I.,..�,I -, -,I..�� L.-,II 4.�, ..� .,.J -,++h., �.,+4,-,�I. I�..., .,f+4.., -,h��+�'., .,I Exception 2�: If unique site characteristics(topography, differences in grade between the subject property and the abutting parcel) make compliance impractical with the maximum light level requirements, an exception to this subsection may be granted by the City Engineer.The City Engineer may impose conditions of approval to mitigate any negative impacts resulting to the abutting parcel, based on best lighting practices and available lighting technology. //////////////////////// Item 9(M): Per Cosner v, Umatilla, delete the option for an abutting property owner to waive maximum light levels at the property line. v. Street Lighting (1) Street lighting installations shall achieve criterion values listed in Table 50.06.004-6. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 17 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 TABLE 50.06.004-6: CITY STANDARD CRITERIA FOR STREET AND ROADWAY LIGHTING (FOOT-CANDLES —FC) GC, NC, R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-6, R- MC, EC, W LG R- PNA 10,and R-15, R-DD, HC,OC, Special Exception 2.5, I, I P, (Natural PNA(Developed Park and WLG OC, LOC Area)Zone Area), PF and R-W WLG 50.06.004.3.b.iv CR&D Zones RMU and Zones CI Zones LOCAL STREETS Not permitted Intersections only* ve�s �eve�s Avg: Light Level N/A 0.3 fc 0.3 fc 0.4 fc 0.4 fc Avg: Min. Uniformity N/A 6:1 6:1 6:1 6:1 Max: Min. Uniformity N/A 40:1 40:1 40:1 40:1 NEIGHBORHOOD Not Li�ht Levels at ��ht � � �ah • COLLECTORS permitted Intersections only* ��els Lev�_ Avg: Light Level N/A 0.3 fc 0.4 fc 0.6 fc 0.6 fc Avg: Min. Uniformity N/A 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1 Max: Min. Uniformity N/A 20:1 20:1 20:1 20:1 MAJOR Not COLLECTOR/MINOR permitted ARTERIAL Avg: Light Level N/A 0.3 fc 0.4 fc 0.6 fc 1.0 fc Avg: Min. Uniformity N/A 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1 Max: Min. Uniformity N/A 20:1 20:1 20:1 20:1 Street lighting standards for major arterials shall be determined by the City MAJOR ARTERIALS Engineer, who may require an independent engineering study to determine the appropriate lighting system. * Luminaires only within 150 ft. of the center point of an intersection. (a) Exception: Federal or state requirements that require a higher illumination value than required by this Code. (2) Street lighting systems shall be designed using the IES "Classical" horizontal foot-candle method per IES/ANSI RP-8-01, and as follows: LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 18 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 (a) The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Table 50.06.004-6 by submitting to the City Engineer point-by-point calculations assuming 65% light loss factor for metal halide and 80%for LED, high pressure sodium,tungsten, fluorescent and induction lamp sources. Submitted street lighting plans shall indicate luminaire types and locations and provide isocandle plots including statistical summaries of roadway lighting. (b) Luminaires shall be fully shielded. (i) Exception: Historic or architectural street lights located in a designated design district. (c) The City Engineer may require street lighting that deviates from Table 50.06.004-6: City Standard Criteria for Street and Roadway Lighting upon finding that a particular street, or portion thereof,warrants a higher level of illumination to protect the public safety and welfare.The City Engineer's decision shall be the final decision of the City.The discouragement of property damage crime is not a sufficient factor in and of itself to warrant the deviation from Table 50.06.004-6. Item 10(M): Headings are added to the table to clarify that the lighting standards apply along street frontages, not just at intersections. � �. � � • � • � 1.SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT a. Purpose The purposes of the solar access provisions for new development are to ensure that land is divided so that structures can be oriented to maximize solar access and to minimize shade on adjoining properties from structures and trees. b. Applicability The solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.d shall apply to subdivision applications#e�-a �'^„^'^^m^^+thate create lots intended for single-family detached dwellings in any zone, except to the extent the reviewing authority finds that the applicant has shown one or more of the conditions listed in LOC 50.04.004.1, Exemptions from Solar Design Standard, and LOC 50.04.004.2, Adjustments to Solar Design Standard, exist and exemptions or adjustments provided for therein are warranted. IE Ile el., ..+De LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 19 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 . . . , . c�. Solar Design Standard At least 80%of the lots in a development subject to this section shall comply with one or more of the options in this section. In order to be included in the 80% requirement a lot must also comply with LOC 50.06.007.1.e. i. Basic Requirement A lot complies with this section if it: (1) Has a north-south dimension of 90 ft. or more; and (2) Has a front lot line that is oriented within 30°of a true east-west axis. ii. Protected Solar Building Line Option In the alternative, a lot complies with this section if a solar building line is used to protect solar access as follows: (1) A protected solar building line for the lot is designated on the plat, or documents recorded with the plat; and (2) The protected solar building line for the lot is oriented within 30°of a true east-west axis; and (3) There is at least 70 ft. between the protected solar building line on the lot to the north and the middle of the north-south dimension of the lot to the south, measured along a line perpendicular to the protected solar building line; and (4) There is at least 45 ft. between the protected solar building line and the northern edge of the buildable area of the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80%of their Isouth-facing wall will not be shaded by structures or�er�-e�e��solar-unfriendly vegetation. iii. Performance Option In the alternative, a lot complies with this section if: (1) Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30°of a true east-west axis and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall protected from shade by Istructures and�e�-e�e�p�solar-unfriendly trees; or LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 20 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 (2) Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32%of their glazing and 500 sq.ft. of their roof area which faces within 30°of south and is protected from shade by structures and�a�-e�e�p�solar-unfriendly trees. de. Protection from Future Shade Structures and�e�-e�e�p�solar-unfriendly vegetation must comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions, LOC 50.06.007.2,for existing lots if located on a lot that is subject to the solar design standard in LOC 50.06.007.1.d, or if located on a lot south of and adjoining a lot that complies with the solar design standard. Item 11 (P): Delete applicability to partitions and Lot Line Adjustments (LLAs "create" lots). Solar Access standard will only apply to subdivisions for single-family residential developments. Item 3(M): Change all references from "non-exempt" to "solar-unfriendly." Item 4(P): Delete Solar Access Permit (SAP being deleted in its entirety). 2.SOLAR BALANCE POINT a. Purpose The purposes of this section are to promote the use of solar energy,to minimize shading of structures by structures and accessory structures, and, where applicable,to minimize shading of structures by trees. Decisions related to these provisions are intended to be ministerial and not subject to a public hearing and are to be processed as a part of the consideration of the minor development permit for the affected structures. b. Applicability This section applies to an application for a building permit for all structures in the R-7.5, R-10 and R- 15 zones and all single-family detached structures in any zone, except to the extent the City Manager finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the conditions listed in LOC 50.04.004.3, Exemption from the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard, and LOC 50.04.004.4,Adjustments to the Maximum Shade Point Height Standards, exists, and exemptions or adjustments provided for Itherein are warranted. In addition,�ae�a-e�er��solar-unfriendlv vegetation planted on lots subject to the provisions of LOC 50.06.007.1.e, Protection from Future Shade, shall comply with the maximum shade point height standard. Solar plan procedures are located in LOC 50.07.004.9. c. Maximum Shade Point Height Standard The height of the shade point shall comply with either subsection 2.c.i or ii of this section. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 21 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 //////////////////////// ii. Performance Option IThe proposed structure, or applicable�e�-e�e��solar-unfriendly vegetation,will shade not more than 20%of the south-facing glazing of existing habitable structure(s), or,where applicable,the proposed structure or+�e�-e��solar-unfriendlV vegetation complies with LOC 50.06.007.1.d.ii or iii. If the protected solar building line is used,�e�-e��solar u +ndly trees and the shade point of structures shall be set back from the protected solar building line two and one-half ft.for every one ft. of height of the structure or of the mature height of�e+�- e�e��solar-unfrie+ndly vegetation over two ft. d. Analysis of Allowed Shade on Solar Feature i. The applicant is exempt from this section if the lot(s) south of and adjoining the applicant's property is exempt from LOC 50.06.007.2.c, Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. ii. Applicants shall be encouraged to design and site a proposed habitable structure so that the lowest height of the solar feature(s) will not be shaded by buildings or�e�-e��solar- unfriendly trees on lot(s)to the south.The applicant shall complete the following calculation procedure to determine if the solar feature(s) of the proposed structure will be shaded.To start,the applicant shall choose which of the following sources of shade originating from adjacent lot(s)to the south to use to calculate the maximum shade height at the north property line: (1) Existing structure(s) or+�e�-e�e��solar-unfriendly trees; or (2) The maximum shade that can be cast from future buildings or�-e�e��solar- unfriendly trees, based on Table 50.06.007-3. If the lot(s)to the south can be further divided,then the north-south dimension shall be assumed to be the minimum lot width required for a new lot in that zone. //////////////////////// Item 3(M): Change all references from "non-exempt" to "solar-unfriendly." � i. � i • 4.STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION a. Utility easement widths shall be the minimum width possible to facilitate utility installation and Imaintenance, and shall be a minimum of#�►fifteen ft. (#+ve7.5 ft. on each side) in width on LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 22 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 easements not adjacent to a street right-of-way per LOC 42,18.1030.1.c, unless otherwise approved by the City En�ineer. b. Utility construction within easements shall minimize disturbance to existing conditions, especially trees and other vegetation. c. Any disturbed areas within easements shall be restored to a condition similar to the condition prior to construction, including the replacement of plants of similar species as those removed or damaged. Replacement trees shall be of similar species and be a minimum of one and one-half in. caliper. d. Utilities to the development and existin� utilities alon�the development's street fronta�e shall be installed underground{unless exempted by the City Manager for any of the followin� reasons}_. � C.,.,��fi� ., .,+i.,r� -, � F.,II.,�.,�. (�}i. Developments which need multi-phase voltages or high kilo volt amperes (kVA) demands may develop with pad transformers where underground transformers are not feasible. Pad mounted transformers shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. I (�}ii. Pad mounted transformers are allowed in-subdivisionsm�'^-�'^^'^_{�m"., �'^„^'^^m^^*� _ , but shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. (�}iii.Above ground telephone and cable television junction boxes are allowed. iv. Accessory Dwellin� Units (ADUs): No under�roundin�of existin�or new utilities alon�street fronta�es is required. Under�roundin�of new on-site utilities is required for ADUs that add floor area. �r,�� r,,,.,,,�„�....,,.,+... �.,;,.+;.,,, -,.,.J .. ��+�I�+��,� -,I.,.,.,�+.-�,�,+f.-.,.,+-,..., -, .,+ L,��+ .,F-,��i�+�„� ., ��+„+„+H„ nni i �H-,ii H„ �r�+-,ii,,.� � .,,�,,.,,.-.,��.,,� v. Remodel of Structures: No under�roundin�of existin�or new utilities alon�street fronta�es is required. Under�roundin�of new on-site utilities is required for buildin�additions that add floor area, ^^"�nr nr no m� vi. Land Division in Residential Zone: If the parcel of land that is the sublect of a land division ("parent parcel") is less than four times the minimum lot area for the residential zone (re�ardless of the actual number of lots created by the land division), existin� utilities alon�the street fronta�e are exempt, but new utilities to development within the area of the parent parcel shall be installed under�round. vii. Deferred Under�roundin�: Any requirement to under�round existin� utilities alon�the street fronta�e of a development may be deferred by the City Mana�er upon findin�that under�roundin�of utilities is not practicable at the time. In lieu of then under�roundin�,the LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 23 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 owner shall execute a covenant, approved by the City Attorney, and recorded in the official records of the County where the real property is located, bindin� upon the parcels created by the land division of the parent parcel, and any later land divisions of those parcels: (1) Waivin�the ri�ht to remonstrate re�ardin�the formation of a local improvement district to under�round utilities; and {�}(2) Obli�atin�the owner(s)to under�round existin� utilities alon�the fronta�e of the parent parcel when the City Mana�er determines that it is practicable to under�round the fronta�e utilities. The covenant shall provide that the cost of under�roundin�is a loint and several obli�ation of the owner(s), and shall provide for the ri�ht of any owner to perform the under�roundin�and to lien the other properties for the cost. f If the owner(s)fail to perform the under�roundin�as required,the City shall have the ri�ht to undertake the under�roundin�and to lien all properties iointly and severally for the cost of the under�roundin�, includin� an additional 20%for administrative cost.l //////////////////////// Item 6(P):This standard requires that all development connecting to utilities must place the utilities underground. The Building Code [LOC 45.09.075] requires underground for new structures, and for remodels refers to the requirements of minor development review under LOC Ch. 50. The scope of some small developments—such as remodels and Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs) that do not add floor area—often does not warrant the cost and disruption of undergrounding on-site. Additionally, a partition where the parent parcel is less than four times the minimum lot size, regardless of the number of actual lots created in the partition, do not warrant undergrounding along the street frontage because there is so little to gain aesthetically. In some cases, undergrounding of overhead utilities may actually require the installation of more utility poles, defeating the code's purpose. The amendments also add the ability in any circumstance to defer undergrounding existing utilities along the street frontage when it is not then practicable. There are references to "undergrounding" in the WLG and DRD Districts that should be deleted because they are redundant to the standards in LOC 50.06.008. The amendment also increases the width of utility easements to 15 feet total,to be consistent with LOC Chapter 42, in order to provide sufficient maneuverability for maintenance vehicle access when the utility is not adjacent to a street. � � i � � � � � 1.APPLICATION a. Application for Development //////////////////////// g. Determination of Completeness LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 24 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 i. The purpose of this subsection 1.g.i and subsections 1.g.ii and iii of this section is to codify the ��,�n_n-,., o„i��statutory maximum review period in the applicable ORS 197.311 (Final Action on Application for Certain Residential Developments Required Within 100 Days) or 227.178 Final Action on Certain Applications Required Within 120 Days) (referred to herein as the "Maximum Review Period Rule.") In the event of a difference in procedure for determining when an application is complete,the provisions of then ORS 197.311 or 227.178 shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of this subsection 1.g.i, and subsections 1.g.ii and iii of this section.This subsection 1.g.i, and subsections 1.g.ii and iii of this section, are applicable only to those minor and major development applications that are subject to the requirements of the "� �IeMaximum Review Period Rules under state law. The City Manager shall review the application and determine whether it is complete.The City Manager shall mail a written notice of such determination within 30 days of the date of filing of the application. If the City Manager determines that the application is incomplete,the City Manager shall inform the applicant in the written notice of the additional information necessary to make the application complete.The application shall be complete at such time as: (1) All of the missing information is submitted; (2) Some of the missing information is submitted and written notice from the applicant that no other information will be provided; or (3) Written notice from the applicant is submitted that none of the missing information will be provided. The applicant shall have 180 days to complete the application. If the City Manager fails to mail notice of the determination within 30 days from the date of filing of an application the application shall be deemed complete on the 31st day following filing of the application for the purposes of the applicable Maximum Review Period "� Rules. ii. When the City Manager determines the application is complete,the City Manager shall inform the applicant of the completeness by mail. A copy of the completeness letter shall also be mailed to the affected neighborhood associations identified in LOC 50.07.003.1.f.iii(1)(a) and (b). Within ten days of the mailing of the notice of completeness to the respective neighborhood associations,the chair, or the chair's representative, of any of the noticed neighborhood associations may request a meeting with the City Manager to discuss the application.The purpose of this meeting is to identify issues. No evidence or argument presented at this meeting shall be deemed to be made part of the record; any evidence or argument shall be submitted in the manner required by LOC 50.07.003.3, Public Notice/Opportunity for Public Comment, or LOC 50.07.003.15.b.i, and LOC 50.07.003.4.a, Conduct of the Hearing. If a meeting is requested,the applicant shall be notified of the meeting and invited to attend the meeting. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 25 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 iii. A final decision on an application, including resolution of all appeals, shall be rendered within the applicable Maximum Review Period Rules"�after the application is deemed complete pursuant to ORS 197.311 or 227.178�^��e�a��#��8-��. iv. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be a limitation on the City's ability to render a final decision on a land use application after the expiration of the applicable Maximum Review Period Rule"�. h. Extensions or Continuances i. Extension to File Completed Application.The applicant for a major or minor development may request one additional 180-day extension for filing a complete application. [Editor's Note:ORS 227.178(3), the statute that this subsection is based on, declares the application void if the information or a request to proceed based upon the application as previously submitted is not submitted by the 180th day.The City Attorney's Office concludes that this subsection is therefore superseded by ORS 227.178(3), and no extensions to the 180- day "additional information" period are permissible.] ii. Extension to Complete Review and Decision on Application.The applicant for a major or minor development may request in writing a specified period of time for a continuance of review of a complete application.A request for an extension or continuance shall be deemed a waiver of Ithe applicable Maximum Review Period Rule�'n ^'�„f�^�' ��+�^^ deadline contained in ORS 227.178 for the period of the extension or continuance, and for any additional time required for rescheduling or re-noticing review proceedings.The total of all extensions for review of a complete application may not exceed 245 days. i. Withdrawing an Application An applicant may withdraw an application at any time prior to adoption of a final City decision on the application. Proceedings on the application shall terminate as of the date of withdrawal.The City Manager may refund all or part of the application fee, depending on how much staff work had been completed at the time of withdrawal. j. Modification of Pending Application i. Modifications of a pending application shall be considered under the standards in effect at the time the application was filed, if the modification: (1) Does not increase the amount of required parking, square footage, or the number of dwelling units; or (2) Does not change the form of a structure. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 26 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 ii. Any modification that does not comply with subsection 1.j.i of this section shall be considered a new application. //////////////////////// Item 12(M): Changes reference to "120-Day Rule"to "applicable Maximum Review Period"to account for Multi-family projects of 5+ units, with 50%"affordable" units, per ORS 197.311. 4. HEARINGS a. Conduct of the Hearing The Chair of the hearing body shall conduct the initial evidentiary hearing on a major development application or an appeal of a decision on a minor development as follows: i. The Chair shall open the hearing by stating the general nature of the application, followed by a summary of these procedures. //////////////////////// xi. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present addition evidence or testimony regarding the application.The hearing body shall grant such request by continuing the hearing pursuant to subsection 4.a.xi(1) of this section or leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony pursuant to subsection 4.a.xi(2) of this section. (1) If the hearing body grants a continuance,the hearing shall be continued to a date, time and place certain at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing.An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence and testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony for the purpose of responding to the new written evidence. (2) If the hearing body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony,the record shall be left open for at least seven days.Any participant may file a written request with the City for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed,the hearing body shall reopen the record for a specific period of time. During this period, any person may submit written testimony raising new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision- making which apply to the matter at issue. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 27 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 (3) A continuance or extension granted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the Iapplicable Ma��num Review Period��n_n-,,, Q„i„ �noc �� ,�Q� unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant. //////////////////////// c. Testimony, Exhibits, and Other Evidence i. Any person may present testimony at public hearing before a hearing body on a major development application or appeal of a minor development decision. ii. Any person may submit exhibits or written comments prior to or at the public hearing. Written comments or exhibits submitted prior to the public hearing must be received by the City IManager by noon�88 p.m. on the day of the scheduled hearing to be submitted by staff at the hearing. Written comments or exhibits submitted at the hearing must be filed with the Item 13(M): Change to noon. Because of the prep necessary on the day of a public hearing by both the project planner and administrative staff, it is not possible to catalogue or distribute, or analyze if necessary, late afternoon comments to the hearing body. Staff suggests moving the deadline up. Comments submitted by the new deadline will be distributed to the hearing body by email prior to the hearing; comments submitted after the deadline will need to be submitted into the record at the hearing by the commenter. recording secretary and placed before the hearing body. Exhibits or written comments that are merely referred to in testimony but which are not placed before the hearing body pursuant to this section shall not become part of the record of the proceedings. iii. The hearing body may take official notice of all adjudicative facts and law which may be judicially noticed pursuant to ORS 40.060 to 40.090, including an ordinance, comprehensive plan, resolution, order, written policy or other enactment of the City of Lake Oswego. Matters officially noticed need not be established by evidence and may be considered by the hearing body in determination of the matter. //////////////////////// f. Continuances i. The hearing body shall continue a public hearing or leave the record open when required to do so pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.4.a.xi. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 28 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 ii. The hearing body may elect to continue a hearing one or more times on its own motion or at the reasonable request of a party. Any continuance or extension of the record requested by an applicant shall result in a corresponding extension of the time limitations of the applicablF Maximum Review Period"^_^�„ °��'^ r^QC "7741. If the initial evidentiary hearing has not been completed pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.4.a,the continued hearing shall resume at the point in the proceedings at which the hearing was continued. If the initial evidentiary hearing has been concluded and the hearing body desires a continuance to reopen the record for additional testimony,the continued hearing shall be conducted as provided in subsection 4.f.iii of this section. In the later case,the hearing body may limit evidence or testimony to a particular issue or issues, but any person shall be allowed to raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision-making for which the hearing body continued the hearing. //////////////////////// 7.APPEALS a. Review by Hearing Body An application for a major development, minor developments in the R-DD zone pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1), or an appeal of a decision of the City Manager regarding a minor development application (except any minor development decision specified by this Code to be made by the City Engineer) shall be decided by a hearing body following a public hearing held pursuant to this Code. //////////////////////// m. Continuances i. The Council may elect to continue a hearing one or more times on its own motion or at the reasonable request of a party. No continuance shall be granted at the request of the applicant Iunless the applicant waives the applicable Maximum Review Period�'^�;t in writing or on the record. If the hearing has not been completed pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.7.j, the continued hearing shall resume at the point in the proceedings at which the hearing was continued. If the hearing has been concluded and the Council desires a continuance to reopen the hearing for additional testimony,the continued hearing shall be conducted as provided in subsection 7.m.ii of this section. In the later case,the Council may limit testimony to a particular issue or issues. If the appeal hearing has been concluded and the Mayor has returned the matter to the table for deliberations,the Council may continue deliberations to a date,time and place certain. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 29 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 //////////////////////// Item 12(M): Amends 50.07.003, Review Procedures,to be consistent with ORS 197.311, which reduces from 120 days to 100 days the time period in which final action must be taken on applications for multi- family residential units of 5+ units with at least 50%of the units sold or rented as affordable (defined as housing that is affordable to households earning 60%of county median or less.) � � � � - � . . • • e This section contains submission and review criteria for the procedures listed below. Where review criteria are important for an understanding of the substantive requirements of a section or limited in size they have been maintained with the substantive provisions. e cni nn nrr�cc DCDI�AIT �� , , „ff+ti„ � ,�.�r+,,,,�.- .-�+„ • , , � �.-r.,r��l �h.J r.,r.-��h�.,.-+r., � ��hl�.- 6,.,�r�h,�. 6. n., .,I., .�.t D., 6��9.^�^Q�i� �. c„i.,.. n,.,...« c�.w.,..:� .. n..��.:......,,.,t� , LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 30 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 , • . . , , � � .,.J �+-,+�.,..+h-,��h�.. -, .,+., ho .-.,+-,�,�,�,.J -„�,.J -, .-.+ In1 r�.,;,,� .,f • ��op,..,�� all�;;��e�'zs�ris�iens rela�ins�e sel�se�s. . , • , , cn nn nnn � n,��+,�,,,,r�� c�i-„- n„��„r c+-,r,�-„-,� „�+�,,,,i„ � � " h„ -, .,,�,,,� ,.,��h,,,,�,. ,-��,,., r�+.,-, -,i e. c.,i.,r c�+e oi.,� o,.�.�:..,..� , . , ..+f...-�h.� �+.��+��.., � i r r � � . � �� -,I.,.J .,I-,r .,f+h., -, .,I�.--,n�� ., .,r�.,�h.,,.��r.,• � � ��I.J �h-,.J.,+h., �.,I-,r f.,-,��r., LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 31 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 , , .,I-,��.,.,�l,+r��, � ��+h H� . . ��T-r�'i E'FY�a�e��Sf6�?S-;-�� ,I-,.f.,-,��r.,I�1 .,.,+6,�, -, .,I��-,n+�� ., �,.-+.. �1� � . c^o�i�pii^c�6dicii �BE�8.0�.00�� AicmrccE2SS� fer e�is�insls�s. � T4,., r .,.J f�,�, �� f�,r h.,.-.,�.�. -, .�,�++.,.J h�� .,.,+ .- .,.J F.,. -, .-.I.,+., -, .,I��-,+�..,�. � A...,r.,..-,1 c+-.....J-.rd�f.,.,. c.,l-.. n..�e« De.....:• � Th., -, Y,I��-,+��,n � .,I.,�., � 1� �T-,-h,., �n�u�f9,=,-F�E9,T�1,T5--I S--a EE{�,=-a�2,—a�',-^,u I�FIr � . � n��+:..� r..,.-,+...� �...,c..i-,.. n,.,.,.« o.....,,.:• � n n-„-�.,+�,.,h,,,�„ +h„ r��.,„ r�� -, „i-„--, ,�„�+ �h-,ii. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 32 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 � � , � , assesr heig�it�i,;,+t;aa�t#�s+�e�n re�ed�L-9��A.^��#�+t�i s+.+c�i , .,.J L,.,+4,�� .,�+�...�. �h-,II . .,�.J +L.., .-. .,�,�+. � � • � €��enr ie ra-e,{--,��e;��esess�e�m+�� • +� . , , �,I-,r Fr��,.,.Jl.,.,.,..�,�-,��,,.�. -, .,+fr.,.,�,+h.,�.,I-,.--, .,-,�+ � An..IL��+L�... De . Dr��e« � . � i i i Y,I��-,n+ h., .,-,-,�I �.,�+h�r f�.,., �-,I.,n.J-,r .J-,.,� .,F�h., .,-,�,.,+�n.. �� se n�ai;,;,=rg�#e-i^�Ta�ie n-�c��ed�L-9��9.9�.904.9.f. i+� , , ��f.....L.-,+ �� .,.J+l, ..�.-,L., �+� Y,I„+„ �1� � � � Cf-,.,.J-,r.J�f.�r -, C..I-.r A.•�.,�� D.,rw.i+ � .J.,��.,..+..+h�, -, .,I��-,.,+ LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 33 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 � � , . , -,;� .-„+,,.-., . �+ .- „�+,,,� , • � � , . , , • , �� n r�., � , ..+ w. �,+ ., 1/I -. +.,r+ .,+.,.�+-.+�..., T l-. +' I I ' I .J I I ' !' A �� o��se sla�T��,ot�,�s-r��ed�L-9�§A.97.AA-r�.f.ii and iii,�he ;�esed se;�-QEsess�e+�#-it�i;,,;��;,�-aat�e�s�ea�e��t�c-�er�+� � , , h.,l�.,".,� �h., -, .,I��-,n+�� .-.I.,+ .-.I-,.. � .--,+., � � � i Y,� r �+.,.J � � � � � � � h.,f�,r.,+h., ., .,�,�� .,ff.,�+�"., � Derw.�+ C..��r�e ..+ Dri.�ee� LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 34 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 � . ,�,�� h., ., ,�,��.,.,�h„f„ii,,,.,�n,. �.,f,,.-..,-,+�,,.,�„�h„ r��., nn,,,,,,,,,,,,, � ; �� , _ �+. „+-,+•,,.,. -,.,,� � � , �h-,.J�,�., .,-,�+.,.., .,.J/.,.-.,6,1,+.,.,.--,.,L.� � • `-'`� � G....�r�+��... �..�1 C..+en��... �f� C�I�r A��ee� Derw.�+ • i i � i � ('r��in+.i D.�.�.�.r ..i+ + �+r�+ �r,t`. r.r+i.�� LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 35 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 I Item 4(P): The Solar Access Permit provisions are deleted in their entirety. Staff could find no history of a Solar Access Permit ever being issued since the adoption of the Solar Code in 1988; additionally,the Solar Access Permit allows Property Owner"A" to encumber Property Owner"B's" property. � � � � � � 1. INTERPRETATION a. For the purposes of this Code certain terms and words are defined as follows: the words "used for" include "designed for" and vice-versa;words used in the present tense include the future,the singular tense includes the plural and vice-versa; the word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is discretionary;the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as otherwise provided. b. In the case of conflict between two similar or identical terms,the term identified as Historic Preservation or Solar Access shall take precedence over the general term when applied to historic preservation or solar access requirements. 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms shall mean: 100-Year Flood See LOC 50.05.011.3.c, "Flood, Base." //////////////////////// I €�e+��Solar-Friendly Tree or Vegetation (Solar Access) The full height and breadth of vegetation that the City Manager has identified as "solar friendly" and listed in the "Solar Friendly Trees Report" dated April 1987 as that report may be amended from time to time; and any vegetation listed on a plat map, a document recorded with the plat, or a solar access permit as exempt. //////////////////////// LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 36 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 ^'^^-��Solar-Unfriendly Tree or Vegetation (Solar Access) Vegetation that is not solar-friendlye�ce�p�. Item 3(M): These amendments make the code more user-friendly by making terminology that is (1) more understandable, and (2) consistent with the terminology used in the referenced "Solar Friendly Trees Report (1987)". LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 37 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 � � �� • � � � • • . . The Lake Oswego Master Plant List identifies plants appropriate for landscaping in specific areas, i.e., resource areas, street trees, West Lake Grove Overlay District, or for other purposes as established in this Code or elsewhere in the Lake Oswego Code,that either identifies plants that: a. Are adapted to local soils and growing conditions, provide food and shelter for native wildlife, and generally do not require fertilizers or pesticides, and do not require long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and sedimentation; or //////////////////////// 1. Native Plants The plants below are native to the Willamette Valley.They are adapted to local climate and soils. Planted in the right location, they should thrive with little or no maintenance. Scientific Name Common Name Native Tall Shrubs/Small Trees Acer circinatum Vine maple Amelanchier alnifolia Western serviceberry/Saskatoon Berberis(Mahonia)aquifolium Tall Oregon grape Cornus stolonifera Redosier dogwood Corylus cornuta Hazelnut Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn Euonymus occidentalis Western wahoo Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Lonicera involucrata Black twinberry Malus fusca Western crabapple Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum Philadelphus lewisii Mock orange Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Ribes sanguineum Red-flowering currant Rosa gymnocarpa Baldhip rose Rosa nutkana Nootka rose LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 38 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 Scientific Name Common Name Native Tall Shrubs/Small Trees Rosa pisocarpa Clustered wild rose Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry Sambucus cerulea Blue elderberry Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry Vaccinium parvifolium Red huckleberry Scientific Name Common Name Native Trees Abies grandis Grand fir Arbutus menziesii Madrone Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple Alnus rubra Red alder Cornus nutallii Pacific dogwood Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash Pinus contorta Shore pine Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood Prunus emarginatus Bitter cherry Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Quercus garryana Oregon white oak Rhamnus purshiana Cascara Salix fluviatilis Columbia River willow Salix lasiandra Pacific willow Salix scouleriana Scouler's willow Salixsitchensis Sitka willow Taxus brevifolius Western yew Thuja plicata Western red cedar LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 39 OF 40 DRAFT 10/30/18 Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock C.,Y,-,H�,.,,,� �,1.�.,, QL�., .,I.J.,rh.,rr.� C.,Y,-,H�,��,� r D.,.J .,I.J.,rh.,rr.� Spiraea douglasii Douglas spiraea Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Q,,,� �,,,.�,�„�,,,-,-„ �,,,,r,.,-,,,,� H,,,.�,�„�„rr„ Item 14(M): This amendment moves four shrubs out of the "tree" section to the proper"tall shrub/small tree" section. LU 18-0035 (Ordinance 2797) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 40 OF 40 APPROVED: 10/22/18 EXHIBIT B-1 LU 18-0035 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ) LU 18-0035— 1963 6 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTCODEFORTHE ) (CITYOFLAKEOSWEGO) 7 PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 8 VARIOUS PROVISIONS, INCLUDING INCREASING ) 9 SETBACKS ON LOTS ZONED HIGH DENSITY WHEN ) l0 THEY ABUT LOTS THAT WILL BE ZONED LOW ) 11 DENSITY UPON ANNEXATION; SOLAR CODE TREE ) 12 TERMINOLOGY; SOLAR ACCESS PERMIT REMOVAL;) 13 UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING EXEMPTIONS; AND ) 14 ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2797. 15 16 NATURE OF APPLICATION 17 18 The City of Lake Oswego is requesting approval of legislative amendments (Ordinance 2797) to 19 the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC) for the purpose of clarifying and 2o updating various provisions, including increasing setbacks on lots zoned high density when they 21 abut lots that will be zoned low density upon annexation; Solar Code tree terminology; Solar 22 Access Permit removal; and utility undergrounding exemptions. Proposed amendments are to: 23 24 LOC 50.04.001— Dimensional Table 25 LOC 50.04.003 — Exceptions, Projections, and Encroachments 26 LOC 50.04.004—Solar Adjustments 27 LOC 50.05.004— Downtown Redevelopment Design District 28 LOC 50.05.005 —West Lake Grove Design District 29 LOC 50.05.012— Uplands R-10 Overlay District 30 LOC 50.06.003 —Circulation and Connectivity 31 LOC 50.06.004—Site Design 32 LOC 50.06.007—Solar Access 33 LOC 50.06.008— Utilities 34 LOC 50.07.003 — Review Procedures 35 LOC 50.07.004—Additional Submission Requirements 36 LOC 50.10.003 — Definitions 37 LOC 50.11.004, Appendix D— Lake Oswego Master Plant List 38 39 LU 18-0035-1963 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 1 of 3 APPROVED: 10/22/18 1 HEARINGS 2 3 The Planning Commission held public hearings and considered this application at its meetings 4 on October 8 and October 22, 2018. The following information was presented to the s Commission at its October 22, 2018 hearing and added to the record: 6 G-1 E-Mail from Leah Puhlman, dated 10/22/2018 7 8 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 9 lo A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 11 Community Culture—Civic Engagement, Policies 1, 2, 4 and 5 12 Land Use Planning— Land Use Administration, Policy D-1 13 Inspiring Spaces and Places—Goal 1, Policy 1(a) 14 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 15 LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 16 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined 17 LOC 50.07.003.16.b Criteria for Legislative Decision 18 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 19 LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required 2o LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 21 22 CONCLUSION 23 24 The Planning Commission concludes that the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 25 2 (dated 08/30/18) of proposed Ordinance 2797 are in compliance with all applicable criteria. 26 27 FINDINGS AND REASONS 28 29 The Planning Commission (Commission) incorporates the staff report, dated August 30, 2018 30 (with all exhibits attached thereto), and the staff inemo, dated October 4, 2018 (with all 31 exhibits attached thereto), as support for its decision. 32 33 ORDER 34 35 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 36 37 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2797, with Attachment 2 38 (08/30/18) [LU 18-0035] be approved by the City Council. 39 4o I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of 41 the City of Lake Oswego. LU 18-0035-1963 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 2 of 3 APPROVED: 10/22/18 � 2 3 DATED this ZZnd day of October, 2018. 4 5 6 Robert Heape 7 Robert Heape, Chair 8 Planning Commission 9 lo 11 ATTEST: 12 13 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - October 22, 2018 14 15 AYES: BAKER, BROCKMAN, HANSEN, HEAPE, PAPE, WARD 16 NOES: NONE 17 ABSTAIN: NONE 18 EXCUSED: SWEERS LU 18-0035-1963 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 3 of 3 DRAFT: 10/24/2018 EXHIBIT C-1 LU 18-0035 �� PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DRAFT MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED �� 5 ��# OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION. � � � CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO f �. ,� i �. Planning Commission Minutes •� �� EXCERPT OF L U 18-0035 October 8, 2018 1 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6: 30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A 4 Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 5 6 ROLL CALL 7 Members present were Chair Rob Heape and Commissioners, Skip Baker, Vickie Hansen and 8 Nicholas Sweers. Vice Chair Bill Ward and Commissioners Ed Brockman and Christian Pape were 9 excused. City Councilor Theresa Kohlhoff was also present. 10 11 Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior 12 Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. 13 14 PUBLIC HEARING 15 Communitv Development Code Annual 2018 Amendments (LU 18-0035) 16 A request from the City of Lake Oswego amending Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to 17 clarify and update various provisions, including increasing setbacks on lots zoned high-density when 18 abutting lots that would be zoned low-density upon annexation; updating Solar Code tree terminology; 19 removing Solar Access Permit; and identifying exemptions from utility undergrounding. Staff 20 coordinator was Les/ie Hamilton, Senior Planner. 21 22 Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Boone, outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. No 23 conflicts of interest were declared, and no one challenged any Commissioner's right to consider the 24 application. 25 26 Staff Report 27 Ms. Hamilton, provided an overview of the staff report. She noted that the only comment received 28 was from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) asking clarifying 29 questions. She stated that in order to meet a noticing requirement, staff was requesting that the 30 hearing remain open and be continued to October 22nd at which time the Commission would accept 31 any additional testimony, conduct deliberations and consider the Findings, Conclusions and Order. 32 33 Questions of Staff 34 Chair Heape questioned whether changing the deadline for submitting testimony from 5:00 p.m. the 35 day of a public hearing to 12:00 p.m. was enough, should it be 24 hours. Ms. Hamilton stated that 36 she didn't think changing it to 24 hours would help because testimony could still be submitted at the 37 hearing. Staff noted that an earlier deadline provided more time for staff to organize and copy 38 testimony prior to the hearing. 39 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2018 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 1 OF 2 DRAFT: 10/24/2018 1 Ms. Hamilton clarified for the Commission that the Uplands Neighborhood Association was in support 2 of the amendments related to the Flag Lot Standards in the Uplands Overlay. 3 4 The Commission discussed review comments received from DLCD staff regarding increasing 5 setbacks on higher density lots abutting lower density unincorporated lots and whether the City had 6 considered increasing the setbacks on the lower density lots instead since there was likely to be more 7 room to allow for more generous setbacks. Ms. Hamilton pointed out that the proposed amendment 8 was for code consistency, as increased setbacks already existed if both lots were in the City and 9 historically the code had protected the low density lots over medium and high density lots. Mr. Siegel 10 advised that there were Comprehensive Plan policies that addressed high density development and 11 required, through implementing codes, that addressed the relationship between higher intensity uses 12 and lower intensity uses; he pointed out that higher density was more likely to have an impact. He 13 commented that from Metro's perspective they were probably looking from a regional standpoint at 14 how to achieve the highest density allowed whereas the City was looking at it from a community 15 perspective and was guided by the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there was supporting plan 16 policy for the proposed amendment. 17 18 Testimony 19 None. 20 21 Chair Heape observed that the Commission was in general agreement with staff recommendations. 22 23 The hearing was continued to October 22nd for additional testimony, deliberations and consideration of the 24 Findings, Conclusions and Order. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2018 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 2 OF 2 DRAFT: 10/25/2018 EXHIBIT C-2 LU 18-0035 �� PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DRAFT MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED �� 5 ��# OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION. � � � CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO f �. ,� i �. Planning Commission Minutes •� �� EXCERPT OF L U 18-0035 October 22, 2018 1 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A 4 Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 5 6 ROLL CALL 7 Members present were Chair Rob Heape, Vice Chair Bill Ward and Commissioners Skip Baker, Ed 8 Brockman, Vickie Hansen and Christian Pape. Commissioner Nicholas Sweers was excused. City 9 Councilor Jeff Gudman was also present. 10 11 Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior 12 Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. 13 14 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 15 Communitv Development Code Annual 2018 Amendments (LU 18-0035) 16 A request from the City of Lake Oswego amending Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to 17 clarify and update various provisions, including increasing setbacks on lots zoned high-density when 18 abutting lots that would be zoned low-density upon annexation, for consistency with the standard for 19 in-city lots; updating Solar Code tree terminology; removing Solar Access Permit; and identifying 20 exemptions from utility undergrounding. Staff coordinator was Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. 21 22 This hearing was continued from October 8, 2018. Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Boone, 23 outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. 24 25 Staff Update 26 Ms. Hamilton, reported that one person had submitted testimony regarding two issues, the first was 27 changing the deadline for submitting testimony from 5:00 p.m. the day of a public hearing to 12:00 28 p.m. Ms. Hamilton explained that changing the deadline was not curtailing the opportunity for 29 individuals to submit written testimony at the hearing; the earlier deadline was providing more time for 30 staff to assemble testimony for the Commission prior to the hearing. The second issue was a request 31 to change the deadline for written testimony to allow citizens more than two weeks to provide 32 comment. Ms. Hamilton advised that the City required the staff report be available 10 days prior to 33 the public hearing, 3 days earlier than what the State required; the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 34 required the staff report to be available 7 days prior to the public hearing. She added that for staff 35 decisions there was a 2 week comment period which matched the ORS. 36 37 Ms. Hamilton stated that the Findings, Conclusions and Order had been updated to reflect the written 38 testimony that had been received. 39 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2018 EXHIBIT C-2/PAGE 1 OF 2 DRAFT: 10/25/2018 1 Testimony 2 None. 3 4 Questions of Staff and Deliberations 5 Commissioner Baker observed that the public not having enough time to respond to issues seemed to 6 be an ongoing issue and he suggested that it be added to a list of future issues for the Commission to 7 address. Mr. Siegel suggested that the Commission discuss this issue at the goal setting meeting. 8 9 Commissioner Baker moved to recommend approval to the City Council of LU 18-0035 and to adopt 10 the Findinqs, Conclusions and Orders. Commissioner Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 11 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2018 EXHIBIT C-2/PAGE 2 OF 2 �� E ��r 1vtEMORANDLJM 1� � � � j � � � � 'i EXHIBIT D-1 'jJ �l LU 18-0035 �REGat� TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board FROM: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2018 Annual Code Amendments - Work Session #2 (LU 18-0035) DATE: July 12, 2018 WORK SESSION DATE: July 23, 2018 ACTION Review the following background and provide input on the scope and process for amending the Solar Access standards and developing an exception to the Utility Undergrounding requirement for small projects. See "Direction Requested" on page 7, for Solar Access, and page 10, for Utilities Undergrounding. BACKGOUND On July 23, 2018, the Planning Commission (Commission) will conduct a work session for proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC), Chapter 50 of the Lake Oswego Code. At the previous work session in May, the Commission requested that staff return for a second work session to review the Solar Code with members of the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB). The purpose of this work session is for the Commission to become familiar with the Solar Code and the issues identified by Planning staff in its implementation, and to provide input on the work plan and proposed amendments. The Commission will also review potential exceptions to utility undergrounding, and provide input to staff on the work plan and amendments. DISCUSSION —SOLAR CODE AMENDMENTS The Solar Code was adopted in 1988 at the conclusion of work completed by the Metropolitan Access Project. As part of this project, the City of Lake Oswego worked with 21 other jurisdictions in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area to develop four uniform solar access protection ordinances. The other participating municipalities were Beaverton, Canby, Clackamas County, Clark County, Cornelius, Fairview, Forest Grove, Gresham, Happy Valley, Milwaukie, Multnomah County, Oregon City, St. Helens, Scappoose, Tigard, Troutdale, Vancouver, Washington County, West Linn and Wilsonville. Lake Oswego - along with Beaverton, Cornelius LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 11 503.675,3984 38D A Avenue PD B�X 3b9 Lake 4swego, DR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page2of11 and Multnomah County- adopted all four proposed ordinances. The other jurisdictions adopted fewer or none. The model codes included the following four elements, each of which Lake Oswego adopted in 1988: (1) Solar Access for New Development The Solar Access provisions apply to all land divisions (partitions and subdivisions) on lots intended for single-family detached dwellings. The purpose of the standard is to ensure that the resulting lots are oriented to (1) maximize solar access, and (2) minimize shade on adjoining properties from structures and trees. Eighty percent of the lots in the land division must comply with one of the following three standards, or meet the criteria for an Exemption or Adjustment. Because partial lots are rounded up, the 80% criteria means that for any land division of four or fewer lots, all lots must meet the Solar Access standard or qualify for an Exemption or Adjustment. The Solar Access options are: Basic Requirement: A lot meets the Basic Requirement if it complies with the following: (1) The lot has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more; and (2) The lot has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. This standard sounds simple but its implementation is not. First, it is necessary to determine which lot line is the Northern Lot Line, and the resulting measurements and angles can be counter-intuitive. Second, because most partitions do not create a new street, the existing street pattern dictates lot orientation and lots created through partitioning often cannot meet the Basic Standard. The graphic below illustrates a proposed partition on Lakeview Boulevard and the application of the Basic Solar Access Standard. These lots do not meet either of the criteria of the Basic standard; more importantly, �'l h ,�'l because of the orientation of the � cS �h�' existing street system, the ' � �� -�'� �'� Northern Lot Lines—illustrated by s �'l�' ��a the red dashed lines—are oriented � TR � 5453 �6'� S'� more than 45 degrees off the east- � A � � �` a 5431 I � �� west axis (see Attachment A for all illow Ct 1••. , �� ,�� . � solar-related definitions). 500 TR 5434 i '�•j � ��h B 5456 i TRACT A '7600 �. `s��, ��.��' ,� ,�� 4 Sv' ��`S � �,`��e `L ��` �u' cr v+ 3 12�1 Northern Lot Lines: Red dash North-South Dimensions: Blue dash LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 2 OF 11 Page3of11 Protected Solar Building Line (PSBL): The PSBL is, by definition, a "line on a plat that identifies the location on a lot where a point two feet above may not be shaded by structures or non-exempt trees." A lot meets the PSBL standard if it complies with the following: (1) The PSBL is located at least 70 feet north of the midpoint of the abutting lot to the south; and (2) The PSBL is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis; and (3) There is at least 45 feet between the PSBL and the northern edge of the buildable area of the new lot (i.e., northern edge of the building envelope, as determined by setbacks). As a condition of approval for a land division that utilizes the PSBL option, the PSBL is required to be recorded on the plat. However, there is no requirement that a single-family dwelling or alteration meet the PSBL. [Meeting the PSBL is one way to meet the Solar Balance Point Standard, described below in Section 2]. The PSBL on 13581 Goodall Road is illustrated below. �� ro — PSBL o 0 13581 � - -----. � 13580 _ __ •�------------ G� 70 feet u o ..`? 5 ••..........rt �,....... '� °�- _ .; , �, ,��__ R-15 Midpoint of lots '13` to the south N N � Rd � � — .� � W � a�� 'A� Performance Option: A lot meets the Performance Option if either of these standards is met: (1) Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis, and at least 80% of the ground floor south wall is protected from shade by structures and non-exempt (i.e., solar un-friendly) trees. (2) Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 sq. ft. of their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected from shade by structures and non-exempt (i.e., solar un-friendly) trees. LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 3 OF 11 Page 4 of 11 This option requires that a Notice of Development Restriction (NDR) be recorded on the property; the NDR requires future structures to comply with these design standards. Staff has found these design standards to be poorly worded and difficult to describe to property owners. For instance, the "32%glazing" standard could refer to all glazing on the dwelling, or just the doors and windows that face within 30 degrees of south. Recently, a designer placed numerous windows on the wall of a south-facing garage to meet the Performance Option. Additionally, property owners are often not aware of the design restrictions required by the NDR. While reviewing deed restrictions is basic due diligence before purchasing or designing a house, due diligence on a lot restricted by the Performance Option requires a full shadow pattern analysis and use of a range finder and trigonometry to measure height and shade of objects to the south of the subject site. Solar Access Exemptions: A development can be exempt or partially exempt from the Solar Access standards if any of the following conditions apply to the site (or portion of the site for which the exemption is requested): (1) Slope: The site is sloped 20% or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south. (2) Off-Site Shade: The site is within the Shadow Pattern of off-site features that will remain on the site from which the shade is originating. Off-site features include structures (existing or approved, or theoretical if located in a non-single family dwelling zone), topography or solar un-friendly trees. (3) On-Site Shade: The site is within the Shadow Pattern of on-site features that will remain on the site such as structures or topography, or solar un-friendly trees at least 30 feet tall with a crown cover over at least 80% of the property (or portion seeking the exemption). Again, these shade exemptions may sound simple, but their implementation is not. First, there is no methodology given for how to measure slope, or whether the exemption applies to both up and down slopes. Second, the Shadow Pattern, as defined in the CDC and copied in Attachment A, is defined as "A graphic representation of an area that would be shaded by the shade point of a structure or vegetation when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3° and an azimuth ranging between 22.7° east and west of true south." The graphics in Attachments B and C illustrate the shadow patterns for pouglas firs and dwellings, and Attachment D illustrates a partition site plan that shows the shadow patterns for both. These are graphics that either staff developed or that were submitted by developers to illustrate compliance or exceptions to the Solar Code; the Solar Code itself has no graphics to illustrate its criteria. To further highlight the difficulty (and unintended consequences) of ineeting the Solar Access standard, in a partition request in 2014, it was determined that the northern lot could not meet the Basic, PSBL or Performance Options, and the potential lots did not meet any of the exemption options. The applicant constructed a new dwelling on the LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 4 OF 11 Page5of11 southern portion of the site, which then could be shown to provide the "off-site shade" on the proposed northern lot, and thus qualify for an exemption (LU 14-0043). Solar Access Adjustments: The reviewing authority can adjust (i.e., reduce) the percentage of lots that must comply with the Solar Access standard if any of the following site characteristics apply: (1) Density: Application of the Solar Design standard reduces the density allowed by the zone. The applicant must show that density is affected by natural grade over 10%o, a significant natural feature (undefined), existing road patterns or easements. (2) Cost: Application of the Solar Design standard increases on-site development costs (e.g., grading water, storm drainage and sanitary systems) and solar-related off-site costs by at least 5% per lot. (3) Si�nificant Development Amenities/Market Value Diminution: Significant development amenities—an undefined term - would be lost or impaired by compliance; the applicant can demonstrate there will be a significant diminution in market value (an undefined term) of the lot to show whether a significant development amenity is affected. (4) Existin�Shade: Solar un-friendly trees that are at least 30 feet tall have a crown cover over at least 80% of the lot, and at least 50%of the crown cover will be maintained. While it might be tempting to add more exceptions to address unique lots, that would only make the code more complex and possibly lead to more unintended consequences. (2) Solar Balance Point The Solar Balance Point provisions apply to (1) building permits for all structures in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones (which includes institutional uses), and (2) building permits for single- family detached dwellings in any zone. The intent of this standard is to minimize the shading on structures on the abutting property to the north of the development site. Structures must meet one of two standards below, or meet the criteria for an Exemption or Adjustment. Basic Requirement: This standard under Maximum Shade Point Height is relatively simple and Planning proposes no amendments to it. In general, the standard reviews the tallest point of the dwelling/structure, how far it is to the northern lot line, and thus how much (if any) shade it casts on the abutting property to the north. While Lake Oswego's Community Development Code (CDC, Chapter 50) does not include illustrations of this standard, Clackamas County uses the following graphic to illustrate it, which identifies the following: • Architectural feature that is the tallest point of the dwelling (i.e., the peak of the gable on illustrated dwelling); • The distance the gable peak is from the north property line (i.e., 25 feet); • Shade cast on abutting property to the north by gable peak LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 5 OF 11 Page 6 of 11 FIGLJRE S SpLAR BALANCE PpIMT STANQARO MAXIMUM SHAOE POINT ALlOWEO SHAp�pN 11tlGlli:F'FiUi'ECIING Y�UH SOLAH FEATCIRE: N�RTHEF7N NEIGHgpP'S SUN L�CATING YDUR H�USE � TD RECEIVE SIJN N ON SOIJTry WINC]pW5 GUARANTEE❑ SU'HFIGHT IN LOT CENTER � � ��-ti �� -t� 1 O' ��-N{ 1 U� ��- STAPJ�ARO SIOE SET6ACK5 �I5'i� �IS'IF REOVCEO SIOE SET6ACK5 SET6ACKAOJVSTMENTSIFNEE�E❑ Tp MEET SOLAft STANOAROS Performance: The applicant must show that the proposed structure meets one of the following: (1) Will not shade more than 20%of the south-facing glazing of existing habitable structures; or (2) Complies with the PSBL Option of Solar Access; or (3) Complies with the Performance Option of Solar Access. Exemptions from Maximum Shade Point: A development can be exempt from the Solar Balance Point standard if any of the following conditions apply: (1) Pre-Existin� Shade: The proposed structure will shade an area that is already shaded by an existing building, a topographic feature, or a solar-unfriendly tree that will remain. (2) Slope: The site has an average slope that exceeds 20% in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south. (3) Insi�nificant Benefit: The proposed structure shades an undevelopable area, the wall of an unheated space, or less than 20 sq. ft. of south-facing glazing. Adjustments to Maximum Shade Point: The City Manager can increase the allowed Shade Point height if any of the following site characteristics apply: (1) Phvsical Conditions: The physical conditions—such as lot size under 3,000 sq. ft., unstable or wet soils, drainage ways, public or private easements, or rights-of-ways - preclude compliance with the Shade Point standard. LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 6 OF 11 Page 7 of 11 (2) Solar Feature Shadin�: If the proposed structure is sited to meet the Shade Point standard, its own solar feature will be shaded. If pursuing this option, the applicant must procure a release from the owner(s) of the properties that will be affected by the increased shade [Note: this "waiver" may be in conflict with the Cosner v. Umatilla land use case.] (3) Solar Access Permit The purpose of a Solar Access Permit is to protect solar features on lots developed with single family detached dwellings. The Solar Access Permit, if granted, prohibits solar features from being shaded by future vegetation, both on and off the designated site. The Solar Access Permit is ministerial, and the applicant must provide the following: • Maximum Shade Point allowed on structure(s) south of the "protected" solar feature • The allowed shade from the structure(s) south of the "protected" solar feature, and where the shade falls on the "protected" solar feature • The dimensions of all properties wholly or partially within 150 feet of the "protected" property • The height, location and orientation of existing vegetation on properties within 150 feet of the site that could, when mature, shade the "protected" solar feature • The requested limit of the height of existing vegetation If a Solar Access Permit is granted, the applicant records the hei�ht restrictions on all burdened properties, and the burdened property owner is responsible for paying all costs associated with keeping the vegetation from exceeding the solar access height limit. The Solar Access Permit appears to allow one property owner to encumber a lot that he or she does not own or have easement rights to. It should be noted that there is no record of the City issuing a Solar Access Permit. (4) Solar Definitions The model solar code contains 18 solar-specific definitions that are required to decipher the solar standards. These, along with a definition of"azimuth" from an on-line dictionary, can be found in Attachment A. The description of the three other solar code amendments, above, has been streamlined by staff for ease of understanding. Staff recommends that the Commission review the solar-specific definitions, as the definitions themselves arguably make the code more difficult to understand and use for both staff and the public. Included in the solar-specific definitions are definitions for "Exempt Trees" and "Non-Exempt Trees", as follows (Attachment E): Exempt Tree or Ve�etation (Solar Access): The full height and breadth of vegetation that the City Manager has identified as "solar friendly" and listed in the "Solar Friendly Trees Report" dated April 1987 as that report may be amended from time to time, and any vegetation listed on a plat map, a document recorded with the plat, or a solar access permit as exempt." LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 7 OF 11 Page 8 of 11 Non-Exempt Tree or Ve�etation (Solar Access): Vegetation that is not exempt. These definitions reference the Solar Friendly Tree Report, which is found in Appendix 50.11.004-D of the CDC and reproduced in Attachment E. This report was the result of an intensive process to determine those deciduous trees, all of which grow in the Willamette Valley, that are suitable for planting as solar-friendly trees. The ranking classification was based on evaluating each tree on this list for crown density, time of leaf drop, time of leaf out, size and growth rate. A committee of tree experts from Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Corvallis ranked each tree with a numerical factor for each of the five criteria. Averages for each criterion were then added to produce the final numerical rank for each tree. The solar standards of LOC 50.06.007, when considering shade from existing vegetation, refer to "exempt" and "non-exempt" trees when describing "solar-friendly" and "solar-unfriendly" trees, respectively. The terms "exempt" and "non-exempt" are jargon and difficult to understand. For creating a more accessible Development Code, staff recommends replacing the terms "exempt" and "non-exempt" with the terms "solar-friendly" and "solar-unfriendly," respectively. DIRECTION REQUESTED—SOLAR CODE AMENDMENTS Both applicants and staff have struggled with applying the Solar Access standard, or exemptions or adjustments to it. The standards include many technical criteria with which staff and applicants have little expertise (i.e., determining true east-west axis, calculating shadow pattern from topography, calculating azimuths and sine functions, evaluation of solar-related off-site development costs.) Staff is aware that some jurisdictions only apply the Solar Access Standard to subdivisions, and exempt partitions from compliance. Secondly, it appears that a Solar Access Permit has never been granted in the 30 years since the model solar codes were adopted. If the Commission is interested in reviewing the Solar Code for the purpose of clarifying and streamlining standards to make the code more accessible to both staff and the public, staff recommends that the item be reviewed separately from the 2018 Annual Amendments, and that a professional with technical knowledge of solar design be engaged to help inform the discussion. As part of the 2018 Annual Amendments, the Commission may consider limiting the applicability of the Solar Access standard to subdivisions (i.e., exempting partitions from the standard). Staff specifically requests direction from the Commission on these items related to the Solar Code: • Exempt/Non-Exempt Tree references: Staff recommends all references to "exempt" and "non-exempt" trees in the Solar Code be updated to "solar-friendly" and "solar- unfriendly", respectively, in the 2018 Annual Code Amendment package. This is a streamlining amendment with no policy implications. • Applicabilitv of Solar Access to Partitions: Staff requests direction on the applicability of Solar Access to partitions. Because of existing street patterns, small land divisions like partitions (up to three lots) have limited ability to meet the design parameters of the Solar Access standards. Staff is aware that otherjurisdictions apply the Solar Access standards only to subdivisions, which will usually require the construction of a public LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 8 OF 11 Page9of11 street. This small streamlining amendment could be reviewed in the 2018 Annual Code Amendment package. • Solar Code Updatin� and Streamlinin�: Staff requests direction on scope and work plan for further analysis of the Solar Code and methods for making it relevant and more accessible. DISCUSSION — UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES The Utility Standard [LOC 50.06.008.4 and others] requires that all development connecting to utilities must place the utilities underground. The Building Code [LOC 45.09.075] exempts building remodels.1 The scope of some small developments—such as Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) and partitions—often does not warrant the cost and disruption of undergrounding because there is so little to gain aesthetically. In some cases, undergrounding of overhead utilities may actually require the installation of more utility poles, defeating the code's purpose. Staff recommends working with the Engineering staff to identify appropriate exemptions to undergrounding, specifically for smaller projects where relocating utilities in the public right-of- way are not practical. [Note: There are references to "undergrounding" in the WLG and DRD districts that should be deleted because they are redundant to the standards in LOC 50.06.008.] At the work session in May, the Commission requested information on the definition of "remodel" and "demolition" as it applied to this exemption, and thresholds for exempting small projects from the undergrounding requirement. The CDC does not define either term; the Building Code, Article 45, defines "demolition" as: • Removal of all exterior walls; • Removal of the superstructure (the part of the building or construction above the lowest subflooring; "lowest subfloor" is the bottommost structural floor laid as a base for a finished floor), such that none of the existing superstructure is maintained; or • Alteration, abandonment or removal of all of the existing perimeter foundation. The requirement for undergrounding, and the specific exemptions to it, are shown below in an excerpt from the Utility Standard. In practice, many small projects are found to be exempt from the undergrounding requirement due to the limited benefit of"spot undergrounding" or the disproportionate cost of undergrounding relative to the impact of the development. The following analysis was provided in a recent partition approval to justify an exemption from the undergrounding requirement [LU 17-0054]: "As to existing utilities along the site frontage of Douglas Circle, the Engineering staff notes there are existing overhead utilities located along the site frontage. It 1 45.09.075 Undergrounding of Utilities. Utility service facilities shall be located underground in conjunction with construction of all new structures subject to this Code that require utility service.The City may require undergrounding of utility service facilities for other structures when subject to development review approval under LOC Chapter 50. LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 9 OF 11 Page 10 of 11 would not be efficient or substantially beneficial to underground the frontage utilities at this time, as it would only result in "spot undergrounding" along the Douglas Circle frontage of the site. It is likely that any substantial undergrounding of frontage utilities along Douglas Circle would come through a street-long improvement project, either as part of a local improvement district or as part of an underground district pursuant to ORS 758.210 et seq. To satisfy this code requirement, the applicant shall be required to underground on-site utilities and to execute and record an LID waiver of remonstrance regarding the formation of a local improvement district or underground district, for the undergrounding of frontage utilities that includes the Douglas Circle frontage of the site." Small projects such as Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) construction and partitions (land division up to three lots) are routinely exempted from utility undergrounding because of the limited benefit of the undergrounding and the Dolan test for "rough proportionality" between the impact of the proposed development and the governmental exaction. DIRECTION REQUESTED— EXCEPTION TO UNDERGROUND FOR SMALL PROJECTS If the Commission concurs with this approach, Planning and Engineering staff will draft a recommended code amendment [likely under LOC 50.06.008] with appropriate exemptions to undergrounding, specifically for smaller projects where relocating utilities in the public right-of- way are not practical, such as ADUs and partitions. � � . � � • 4. STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION ///// d. Utilities shall be installed underground (unless exempted by the City Manager). i. Specific exemptions are as follows: (1) Developments which need multi-phase voltages or high kilo volt amperes (kVA) demands may develop with pad transformers where underground transformers are not feasible. Pad mounted transformers shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. (2) Pad mounted transformers are allowed in major single-family developments, but shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. (3) Above ground telephone and cable television junction boxes are allowed. ///// LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 10 OF 11 Page11of11 ATTACH M E NTS A. Solar Code and Definitions (current code) B. Shade Point Shadow Pattern —Tree C. Shade Point Shadow Pattern — Dwelling D. Shade Point Partition Site Plan —Tree and Dwelling E. Solar Friendly Tree Report (April 1987), Appendix 50.11.004-D Staff reports/memos and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. http://www.ci.oswe�o.or.us/prolects In the "Search" box enter LU 18-0035 then press "Submit" LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 11 OF 11 EXHIBIT D-2 LU 18-0035 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 18-0035, Ordinance 2797 LOCATI O N STAF F Citywide Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE August 30, 2018 October 8, 2018 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of clarifying and updating various sections. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: • Increase setbacks on lots zoned high density (R-0, R-2 and R-3) when they abut lots that will be zoned low density (R-7.5, R-10 and R-15) upon annexation into the City. • Update all references of"exempt" vegetation and "non-exempt" vegetation" to "solar friendly" vegetation and "solar unfriendly" vegetation, respectively, to be consistent with the Solar Friendly Trees Report in LOC Appendix 50.11.004-D (5) • Delete the Solar Access Permit standard • Amend the applicability of the Solar Access standard to apply to subdivision, but not to partitions or lot line adjustments • Identify appropriate exceptions to the utility undergrounding requirement The sections proposed for revision relate to several general topic areas and a number of them are more fully described in Section III of this report. The draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A-1. Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 1 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Citv of Lake Oswe�o Comprehensive Plan Community Culture—Civic Engagement, Policies 1, 2, 4 and 5 Land Use Planning - Land Use Administration, Policy D-1 Inspiring Spaces and Places—Goal 1, Policy 1(a) 6. City of Lake Oswe�o Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision III. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose of the proposed updates and amendments is to correct errors, eliminate text ambiguity or redundancy, and clarify text. This process is part of the City's ongoing effort to make the regulations more business-friendly and resident-friendly while maintaining community standards. Proposed Ordinance 2797 consists of 14 text amendments. The text boxes in Attachment 2 describe the reason for each amendment, and include commentary on its background and discussion points. The amendments that generated the most discussion at the work sessions are further described below. Item 1: Increased Setbacks on Hi�h Densitv Lots (Pa�e 1 of Attachment 2): On lots zoned R-0, R-2 and R-3 (High Density Residential), setbacks are increased where there is an abutting lot that is low density (R-7.5, R-10 or R-15). However, under current code, the zoning of abutting unincorporated properties is not considered. The standard for increased setbacks is expanded to apply where unincorporated lots, upon annexation, would be zoned low-density. This amendment requires Measure 56 Noticing. Item 3: Tree Terminolo�y in the Solar Codes (Pa�es 2-4, 20-22 and 36-37 of Attachment �: The model solar code contains 18 solar-specific definitions that are required to decipher the solar standards, including definitions for "Exempt Trees" and "Non-Exempt Trees", as follows: Exempt Tree or Ve�etation (Solar Access): The full height and breadth of vegetation that the City Manager has identified as "solar friendly" and listed in the "Solar Friendly Trees Report" dated April 1987 as that report may be amended from time Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 2 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 to time, and any vegetation listed on a plat map, a document recorded with the plat, or a solar access permit as exempt." Non-Exempt Tree or Ve�etation (Solar Access): Vegetation that is not exempt. These definitions reference the Solar Friendly Tree Report, which is found in Appendix 50.11.004-D of the CDC (Exhibit F-1). The Solar Friendly Tree Report identifies trees as either "Solar Friendly" or "Solar Unfriendly." The solar standards of LOC 50.06.007, when considering shade from existing vegetation, refer to "exempt" and "non-exempt" trees when describing "solar-friendly" and "solar- unfriendly" trees, respectively. The terms "exempt" and "non-exempt" are jargon and difficult to understand. For creating a more accessible Development Code, the terms "exempt" and "non-exempt" have been replaced with the terms "solar-friendly" and "solar-unfriendly," respectively. Item 4: Solar Access Permit (Pa�es 4, 30-36 of Attachment 2): The purpose of a Solar Access Permit is to protect solar features on lots developed with single family detached dwellings. A Solar Feature is defined as: "A device...that does or will use direct sunlight as a source of energy for such purposes as heating or cooling of a structure, heating or pumping of water, and generating electricity. Examples of a solar feature include a window that contains at least 20 sq. ft. of glazing oriented within 45° east and west of true south, a solar greenhouse, or a solar hot water feature. A solar feature may be used for purposes in addition to collecting solar energy, including but not limited to serving as a structural member or part of a roof, wall, or window. A south-facing wall without windows and without other features that use solar energy is not a solar feature for purposes of this Code." The Solar Access Permit, if granted, prohibits solar features from being shaded by future vegetation, both on and off the designated site. The Solar Access Permit is ministerial, and the applicant must provide the following: • Maximum Shade Point allowed on structure(s) south of the "protected" solar feature • The allowed shade from the structure(s) south of the "protected" solar feature, and where the shade falls on the "protected" solar feature • The dimensions and property owners' names of all properties wholly or partially within 150 feet of the "protected" property, and a scaled plan that shows the location of all existing vegetation on these properties that could shade the applicant's solar feature Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 3 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 • The height, location and orientation of existing vegetation on properties within 150 feet of the site that could, when mature, shade the "protected" solar feature of the applicant • The requested limit of the height of existing vegetation If a Solar Access Permit is granted, the applicant records the hei�ht restrictions on all burdened properties, and the burdened property owner is responsible for paying all costs associated with keeping the vegetation from exceeding the solar access height limit. The Solar Access Permit appears to allow one property owner to encumber a lot that he or she does not own or have easement rights to. It should be noted that there is no record of the City issuing a Solar Access Permit. Based on these concerns and input from the Planning Commission at the July work session, the draft amendment deletes the Solar Access Permit and all references to it. Item 6: Exemptions for Utilitv Under�roundin� (Pa�es 6-7, 9-10, 22-24 of Attachment 2): The Utility Standard [LOC 50.06.008.4 and others] requires that all development connecting to utilities must place the utilities underground. The Building Code [LOC 45.09.075] exempts building remodels.1 The scope of some small developments—such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and partitions—often does not warrant the cost and disruption of undergrounding because there is so little to gain aesthetically. In some cases, undergrounding of overhead utilities may actually require the installation of more utility poles, defeating the code's purpose. Planning staff worked with the Engineering staff to identify appropriate exemptions to undergrounding, specifically for smaller projects where relocating utilities in the public right-of-way are not practical. [Note: There are references to "undergrounding" in the WLG and DRD districts that are deleted because they are redundant to the standards in LOC 50.06.008.] At the work session in May, the Commission requested information on the definition of "remodel" and "demolition" as it applied to this exemption, and thresholds for exempting small projects from the undergrounding requirement. The CDC does not define either term; the Building Code, Article 45, defines "demolition" as: • Removal of all exterior walls; • Removal of the superstructure (the part of the building or construction above the lowest subflooring; "lowest subfloor" is the bottommost structural floor laid as a base for a finished floor), such that none of the existing superstructure is maintained; or • Alteration, abandonment or removal of all of the existing perimeter foundation. 1 45.09.075 Undergrounding of Utilities. Utility service facilities shall be located underground in conjunction with construction of all new structures subject to this Code that require utility service.The City may require undergrounding of utility service facilities for other structures when subject to development review approval under LOC Chapter 50. Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 4 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 The requirement for undergrounding, and the specific exemptions to it, are shown below in an excerpt from the Utility Standard. In practice, many small projects are found to be exempt from the undergrounding requirement due to the limited benefit of"spot undergrounding" or the disproportionate cost of undergrounding relative to the impact of the development. The following analysis was provided in a recent partition approval to justify an exemption from the undergrounding requirement [LU 17-0054]: "As to existing utilities along the site frontage of Douglas Circle, the Engineering staff notes there are existing overhead utilities located along the site frontage. It would not be efficient or substantially beneficial to underground the frontage utilities at this time, as it would only result in "spot undergrounding" along the Douglas Circle frontage of the site. It is likely that any substantial undergrounding of frontage utilities along Douglas Circle would come through a street-long improvement project, either as part of a local improvement district or as part of an underground district pursuant to ORS 758.210 et seq. To satisfy this code requirement, the applicant shall be required to underground on-site utilities and to execute and record an LID waiver of remonstrance regarding the formation of a local improvement district or underground district, for the undergrounding of frontage utilities that includes the Douglas Circle frontage of the site." Small projects such as Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) construction and partitions (land division up to three lots) are routinely exempted from utility undergrounding because of the limited benefit of the undergrounding and the Dolan test for "rough proportionality" between the impact of the proposed development and the governmental exaction. The proposed amendments codify some routine exemptions, and also identify the process by which deferred undergrounding would be ultimately constructed. Item 7: Fla� Lot Standards in Uplands Overlav (Pa�es 11-15 of Attachment 2): The Uplands R-10 Overlay is intended to protect the existing neighborhood character of primarily one and 1 %z story houses. The overlay was also intended to prevent new "uphill" construction from looming over residences by prohibiting height increases for slope and roof projections. The overlay text is amended to clarify that the following standards apply to both flag and non-flag lots: • Maximum height of 30 feet • Prohibition of the roof height exception • Limitations on impervious surfaces This amendment requires Measure 56 Noticing. Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 5 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 Item 11: Solar Access - Subdivisions (Pa�e 19 of Attachment 2): The Solar Access standard currently applies to all land divisions (partitions and subdivisions), and requires a lot orientation that will (1) maximize solar access and (2) minimize shade on abutting properties. A short description of the Solar Access compliance options, as well as allowed exceptions and adjustments to the standard, are included in Exhibit D-1, the Planning Commission staff inemo dated July 12, 2018. As described in that memo, both applicants and staff have struggled with applying the Solar Access standard, or exemptions or adjustments to it. The standard includes many technical criteria with which staff and applicants have little expertise (i.e., determining true east-west axis, calculating shadow pattern from topography, calculating azimuths and sine functions, evaluation of solar- related off-site development costs.) Staff is aware that some jurisdictions only apply the Solar Access Standard to subdivisions, and exempt partitions from compliance. Based on input from the Planning Commission, staff recommends that Lake Oswego take the same approach and limit the applicability of the Solar Access standard to subdivisions. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On September 27, 2018, public notice of the proposed CDC text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice The City followed the procedures required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) for notification of the owners of property potentially affected by the changes. The notice was mailed to all residential property owners (1) on unincorporated lots that would be zoned high density upon annexation and which also abut lots zoned low density (Item 1); and (2) within the Uplands Overlay (Item 7). C. DLCD Notice Pursuant to LOC 50.07.016, staff has provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 6 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Citv of Lake Oswe�o Comprehensive Plan Staff has identified six Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal: Community Culture—Civic Enga�ement Policies 1, 2, 4 and 5. Policy 1: Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and ordinances. Policy 2: Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions. Policy 4: Encourage citizens to participate through their neighborhood without excluding participation as individuals or through other groups. Policv 5: Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations. Findin�s: The CDC, which implements the Comprehensive Plan, contains requirements for a citizen involvement program which clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be notified in the on-going land use planning process and enables citizens to comprehend the issues and become involved in decision making. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in the Code were provided during this process, including noticing to all Neighborhood Associations and business organizations. A Public Review Draft will be circulated between August 30— September 27, 2018, and public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, the process followed for these amendments is in compliance with the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. Conclusion: The City has provided adequate opportunities for public participation consistent with the cited Comprehensive Plan policies. Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 7 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 Land Use Plannin�, Section D Land Use Administration Policy D-1. Policv D-1: Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro,federal agency, and special districts. Findin�s: Staff has provided the required notification to the County, State, and Metro consistent with this policy. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this policy. Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policy 1(a). Goal 1, Policv 1(a): Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure new development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height and setbacks. Findin�s: The proposed amendment to increase setbacks on high-density residential lots that abut lots that would be zoned low density upon annexation will ensure complementary development in residential areas through consistent setback patterns. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this policy. VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the CDC to provide clarification and correction and update relevant sections to reflect current City practices. EXH I BITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2797, draft 08/24/18 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 08/30/18 B. Findin�s, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 8 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports D-1 Planning Commission Memo dated 07/12/18 (due to size, attachments are not included with this staff report, but can be viewed on the project webpage) E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials F-1 Solar Friendly Trees Report, dated April 1987, LOC Appendix 50.11.004-D (5) G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Planning Commission Public Hearing EXHIBIT D-2/Page 9 of 9 LU 18-0035 October 8,2018 �LA F o�� MEIvt�RAN DUN4 '�- � . EXHIBIT D-3 ; � � ;� � � � LU 18-0035 `REGQ��: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2018 Annual Code Amendments— Public Hearing (LU 18-0035) DATE: October 4, 2018 MEETING DATE: October 8, 2018 On October 8, 2018, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing for proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50). This report addresses the Public Review Draft that was circulated for public comments between August 30 and September 27, 2018. Background The August 30, 2018 Staff Report and the Draft Code Amendments document (Attachment 2 of Exhibit A-1) contain the proposed amendments and supporting analysis. Item 1: During the Public Review Draft circulation, Metro submitted a comment, the only comment received (Exhibit F-3), and it addresses Item 1, Increased Setbacks on High Density Lots (Page 1 of Attachment 2, Exhibit A-1). The amendment is described as follows: On lots zoned R-0, R-2 and R-3 (High Density Residential), setbacks are increased where there is an abutting lot that is low density (R-7.5, R-10 or R-15). However, under current code, the zoning of abutting unincorporated properties is not considered. The standard for increased setbacks is expanded to apply where unincorporated lots, upon annexation, would be zoned low-density. This amendment requires Measure 56 Noticing. Metro questions why increased setbacks are proposed on high-density lots rather than low- density lots, since the development pattern on low-density lots may better be able to provide increased setbacks. As described above, the amendment applies an existing standard to instances where the abutting lot is unincorporated. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other existing Community Development Code (CDC) provisions to require an increased setback on the high density lot abutting any low density lot (instead of the inverse). The Plan contains policies that require compatibility between development in High Density and Low Density zones, and the CDC implements those LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-3/PAGE 1 OF 2 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 policies, for example, by requiring landscape buffers, building height step-downs, and increased setbacks between development on High Density and Low Density lots that are inside the city. The proposed amendment is consistent with that existing policy because it extends the "increased setback" provision to instances where the abutting lot is unincorporated. This approach is reasonable because the Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the unincorporated lots within the City's Urban Services Boundary will eventually annex to the City. These lots should be afforded the same buffering from High Density development as the Low Density lots that are already inside the City. Item 3 updates tree terminology in the Solar Codes. The August 30, 2018 Staff Report included the Solar Friendly Trees Report as Exhibit F-1, but did not include the appendices describing the committee, seminar participants, ranking methodology and climate map. The appendices are attached as Exhibit F-2. Exhibits F-2 Appendices to the Solar Friendly Trees Report F-3 E-Mail from Jennifer ponnelly, Metro Regional Representative, 09/25/18 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT D-3/PAGE 2 OF 2 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us EXHIBIT F-1 LU 18-0035 APPENDIX 50.11.004-D $OLAR FRIENDLY TREE REPORT�APRIL 19H7� (Prepared by Conservation Management Services, a division of The Bankendorf Associates Corporation] The following list is the result of an intensive process to determine those deciduous trees, all of which grow in the Willamette Valley,that are suitable for planting as solar friendly trees. The ranking classification was based on evaluating each tree on this list for crown density,time of leaf drop,time of leaf out, size and growth rate. A committee of tree experts from Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Corvallis ranked each tree with a numerical factor for each of the five criteria. Averages for each criterion were then added to produce the final numerical rank for each tree. The criteria for these rankings are included in the appendices. I—Solar Friendlv Trees. These are trees that had a ranking of less than 13. These are considered to be solar friendly trees based on the criteria established by the committee. A few trees, however,which had a ranking of 13 or over were discussed by the committee and designated as solar friendly after reviewing the photographs and bare branch patterns. Solar Friendly Trees—251. II—Solar Unfriendlv Trees: These are the trees that had a ranking of 13 or more. Based on the discussion at the workshop these are considered to be solar unfriendly trees. A few trees, however, with rankings of less than 13 were classified by the committee upon careful review as solar unfriendly trees due to some specific characteristic, such as seed pods that remain on all winter. Solar Unfriendly Trees—116. III—Trees Not Ranked: These trees were not ranked by the committee. They will be included in the final report as trees which grow in the Willamette Valley but which have not been identified as either solar friendly or solar unfriendly. Either these trees are rare, or no one on the committee was familiar enough with the tree to give it a ranking. Trees not ranked—37. The climatic zone within which all these trees grow is defined as Zone 6 which extends from Clark County, Washington, down the Willamette Valley to Roseburg, Oregon. For a map of this zone see Appendix B. I—SOLAR FRIENDLY TREES Botanical Name Common Name Rank Acer buergianum Trident Maple 11 A. campestre 'Queen Elizabeth' Queen Elizabeth Maple 11 A. cappadocicum Coliseum Maple 10.3 A. c. 'Rubrum' Red Coliseum Maple 10.3 A. capillipes Red Snake Bark Maple 11 A. circinatum Vine Maple 9.9 A. davidii David's Maple 11.5 A. ginnala 'flame' Flame Maple 10 A. griseum Paperbark Maple 11.5 A.japonicum Fullmoon Maple 9.5 A. nigrum 'greencolumn' Greencolumn Maple 11 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 1 OF 14 A. palmatum Japanese Maple 10.4 A. platanoides Norway Maple 12 A. p. 'almira' Almira Norway Maple 12 A. p. 'cavalier' Cavalier Norway Maple 12 A. p. 'cleveland' Cleveland II Norway Maple 11 A. p. 'crimson sentry' Crimson Sentry Maple 12 A. p. 'columnare' Columnar Norway Maple 11.8 A. p. 'crimson king' Crimson King Norway Maple 11.3 A. p. 'deborah' Deborah Maple 12 A. p. 'emerald queen' Emerald Queen Norway Maple 13 A. p. 'globe' Globe Norway Maple 11.3 A. p. 'jade glen' Jade Glen Maple 12 A. p. 'olmsted' Olmsted Norway Maple 11.6 A. p. 'royal red' Royal Red Norway Maple 11.6 A. p. 'schwedleri' Schwedler Norway Maple 11.6 A. p. 'silver variegated' Silver Variegated Maple 12 A. pseudoplatanus Sycamore Maple 12.3 A. p. atropurpureum 'spaethi' Wineleaf Sycamore Maple 12 A. p. 'pyramidale' Pyramidal Sycamore Maple 10.3 A. rubrum Scarlet Maple 12.5 A. r. 'autumn flame' Autumn Flame Maple 11 A. r. 'bowhall' Bowhall Red Maple 12.1 A. r. 'gerling' Gerling Red Maple 12.9 A. r. 'karpick' Karpick Red Maple 12 A. r. 'morgan' Morgan Red Maple 11.7 A. r. 'october glory' October Glory Red Maple 12.5 A. r. 'scanlon' Scanlon Red Maple 12.4 A. r. 'scarlet sentinel' Scarlet Sentinel Maple 10 A. r. 'schlesinger' Schlesinger Red Maple 11.9 A. rufinerve Redvein Maple 12.5 A. saccharum 'bonfire maple' Bonfire Maple 12 A. s. 'columnare' Columnar Sugar Maple 12.7 A. s. 'commemoration' Commemoration Maple 12 A. s. 'green mountain' Green Mountain Sugar Maple 10.4 A. s. 'legacy' Legacy Maple 12 A.truncatum Truncate Maple 10.8 Aesculus carnea Red Horsechestnut 12.5 A. hippocastanum 'baumannii' Baumann's Horsechestnut 11.6 Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-Heaven 12.3 Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree Mimosa 10 Amelanchier canadensis Serviceberry 10 A. laevis Allegheny Serviceberry 10 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 2 OF 14 Aralia elata Japanese Aralia 10 A. spinosa Devil's Walking Club 7.2 Betula jacquemontii Jacquemontii Birch 13 B. papyrifera Paper Birch 12.1 B. pendula 'alba' European White Birch 12.1 B. p. 'Dalecarlica' Cutleaf Weeping Birch 11.4 B. p. 'fastigiata' Pyramidal White Birch 12.3 B. p. 'Youngii' Young's Weeping Birch 10.1 Carpinus betulus 'globesun' Globe European Hornbeam 12 C. b. 'quercifolia' Oakleaf European Hornbeam 10 C. caroliniana American Hornbeam 11.5 C.tschonoskii Yeddo Hornbeam 11 Carya illinoensis Pecan 10 C. ovata Shagbark Hickory 10 Castanea sativa European Chestnut 12.7 Catalpa bignoides Southern Catalpa 10.7 C. bungei Manchurian Catalpa 7 C. speciosa Northern Catalpa 10.2 Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry 11.6 Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsura Tree 10.3 Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 11 C. occidentalis Western Redbud 11 Cladrastis lutea American Yellowwood 11.1 Cornus controversa Giant Dogwood 10.8 C.florida Flowering Dogwood 10.6 C. kousa Japanese Dogwood 11 C. nuttallii Pacific Dogwood 11.3 Corylus maxima Filbert 11.8 C. colurna Turkish Hazel 12.8 Cotinus coggygria Smoke tree 8.8 Crataegus crus-galli 'inermis' Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn 12 C. punctata 'ohio pioneer' Ohio Pioneer potted Hawthorn 12.7 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 3 OF 14 C. x. mordensis `toba' Toba Hawthorn 11 Davidia involucrata Dovetree 11.7 Diospyros virginiana Common Persimmon 9.2 Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian Olive 12.1 Ficus carica Common Fig 8.3 Franklinia alatamaha Frankliniana 10 Fraxinus Americana White Ash 9 F. a. 'autumn applause' Autumn Applause Ash 9 F. a. 'autumn purple' Autumn Purple Ash 9 F. a. 'rosehill' Rosehill Ash 10 F. angustifolia 'dr. pirone' Dr. Pirone Narrowleaf Ash 11.8 F. excelsior European Ash 11.3 F. e. 'rancho' Rancho European Ash 12 F. holotricha (no common name listed) 10.7 F. latifolia Oregon Ash 11.3 F. ornus Flowering Ash 12.1 F. o. 'raywood' Raywood Ash 12.9 F. o. 'aureafolia' Golden Desert Ash 13.5 F. pennsylvanica lanceolata Green Ash 11.3 F. p. `marshall' Marshall Ash 11 F. p. `summit' Summit Ash 9 F. p. `patmore' Patmore Aha 9 F. p. `emerald' Emerald Ash 10 F. quadrangulata Blue Ash 10.5 Gingko biloba Maidenhair Tree 8.4 Gleditsia triacanthos Common Honeylocust 9.1 G. t. inermis 'trueshade' Trueshade Honeylocust 8 G. t. 'green arbor' Green Arbor Honeylocust 8 G. t. 'halka' Halka Honeylocust 8 G. t. 'imperial' Imperial Common Honeylocust 7.3 G. t. 'moraine' Moraine Common Honeylocust 9.7 G. t. 'shademaster' Shademaster Common 9.2 Honeylocust G. t. 'skyline' Skyline Common Honeylocust 9.5 G. t. 'summergold' Summergold Honeylocust 8 G. t. 'sunburst' Sunburst Common Honeylocust 7.2 Gymnocladus dioica Kentucky Coffee Tree 8.6 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 4 OF 14 Halesia carolina Carolina Silverbell 8 H. monticola Mountain Silverbell 10.8 Hovenia dulcis Japanese Raisin Tree 11 Idesia polycarpa Idesia 9.7 Juglans cinerea Butternut 7 J. hindsii Hinds Blackwalnut 7 J. nigra Blackwalnut 10.9 J. regia English walnut 9.7 Koelreuteria paniculata Panicled Goldenrain Tree 11.2 K. p. 'September goldenrain' September Goldenrain Tree 11 Laburnum alpinus Scotch Laburnum 9 L. anagyroides Goldenchain Laburnum 11.6 Lagerstroemia indica Common Crapemyrtle 10.3 Larix decidua European Larch 11.7 L. laricina Eastern Larch (Tamarack) 7 L. leptolopis Japanese Larch 9 L. occidentalis Western Larch 10 Liquidambar formosana Chinese Sweetgum 12 L. orientalis Oriental Sweetgum 12.5 L. styraciflua variegata Golden American Sweetgum 12.7 Maackia amurensis Amur Maacki 11 Magnolia acuminata Cucumbertree Magnolia 13.2 M. campbellii Campbell Magnolia 12.5 M. macrophylla Bigleaf Magnolia 10 M. salicifolia Anise Magnolia 10 M. sargentiana Sargent Magnolia 11.5 M. soulangeana Saucer Magnolia 10.1 M. stellata Star Magnolia 10.8 M.veitchii Veitch Magnolia 9.8 M. wilsoni Wilson Magnolia 8 Malus arnoldiana Arnold Crabapple 11.5 M. baccata Flowering Crabapple 12 M. b. 'columnaris' Columnar Siberian Crabapple 11.5 M. b. 'jackii' Jackii Crabapple 12 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 5 OF 14 M. 'david' David Crabapple 12 M. 'liset' Liset Crabapple 12 M. 'mary potter' Mary Potter Crabapple 11 M. 'prairiefire' Prairiefire Crabapple 13 M. 'red baron' Red Baron Crabapple 12 M. 'royal ruby' Royal Ruby Crabapple 10 M. sargentii Sargent Crabapple 11 M. s. 'rosea' Sargent Pinkbud Crabapple 9.8 M. s. 'rancho ruby' Rancho Ruby Sargent 8 Crabapple M. selkirk Selkirk Crabapple 10 M.tschonoskii Tschonoskii Crabapple 12 M. 'van eseltine' Van Eseltine Crabapple 9.5 M. 'white cascade' White Cascade Crabapple 13 M. zumi 'calocarps' Calocarpa Zumi Crabapple 10.5 Metasequoia glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood 11.7 Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo 11.4 Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood 9 Paulownia tomentosa Royal Paulownia 11.5 Phellodendron amurense Amur Corktree 10.7 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 11 Prunus avium Mazzard Cherry 12.2 P. a. `plena' Double Mazzard Cherry 9 P. a. `scanlon' Scanlon Cherry 10.3 P. blireiana Blireiana Plum 11.2 P. cerasifera Myrobalan Plum 12 P. c. atropurpurea Purple Plum 12 P. c. 'newport' Newport Plum 12 P. c. 'thundercloud' Thundercloud Plum 12.6 P. c. Krauter'vesuvius' Krauter Vesuvius Plum 10.7 P. maacki Amur Chokecherry 11 P. mune Japanese Apricot 12 P. `okame' Okame Cherry 10 P. persica Peach varieties 11 P. padus 'alberti' Albert Birdcherry 12 P. p. 'bigflower' Bigflower European Birdcherry 12 P. p. 'berg' Rancho European Birdcherry 12 P. sargentii Sargent Cherry 11.5 P. s. 'columnaris' Columnar Sargent Cherry 10.3 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 6 OF 14 P. s. 'rancho' Rancho Sargent Cherry 11.1 P. serrula Birch Bark Cherry 11 P. serrulata Oriental Cherry 10.5 P. s. amanogawa Amanogawa Cherry 11 P. s. kwanzan Kwanzan Oriental Cherry 11.2 P.s. 'Mt. Fuji' or 'shirotae' Mt. Fuji Cherry 11 P. subhirtella 'autumnalis' Autumn Flowering Cherry 10 P. s. `rosea' Whitcomb Flowering Cherry 10 P. s. 'pendula plena rosea' Double Weeping Cherry 12 P. s. 'yedoensis' Yoshino Cherry 12 P. s. 'yedoensis akebono' Akebono Cherry 12 Pterocarya stenoptera Chinese Wingnut 11 P. fraxinifolia Caucasian Wingnut 11 Pterosytrax hispida Fragrant Epaulette Tree 11.3 Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak 12.5 Q. garryana Oregon White Oak 12.2 Q. kelloggii California Black Oak 9.5 Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac 7 R. typhinia Staghorn Sumac 8.6 Robinian pseudoacacia `decaisne' Decaisne Black Locust 13 R. hispida macrophylla Smooth Rosecacia Locust 13 Salix discolor Pussy Willow 11 Sambucus caerulea Blue Elderberry 11.2 Sassafras albidum Common Sassafras 10 Sophora japonica Japanese Pagodatree 11.6 Sorbus alnifolia Korean Mountain Ash 10 S. aucuparia European Mountain Ash 12.4 S. a. fastigiata Dwarf Mountain Ash 11 S. a. 'wilson' Wilson Mountain Ash 11 S. cashmeriana Kashmir Mountain Ash 11.5 S. tianshanica 'red cascade' Red Cascade Mountain Ash 10 Stewartia koreana Korean Stewartia 10.5 S. pseudo-camellia Japanes Stewartia 12.2 S. monodelpha Tall Stewartia 9.5 Styrax japonica Japanese Snowbell 10.7 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 7 OF 14 S. obassia Fragrant Snowbell 9.6 Syringa reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac 11.7 S. vulgaris Common Lilac 9 Tamarix pentandra Salt Cedar 9 Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden 11.9 T. c. 'greenspire' Greenspire Littleleaf Linden 12.2 T. c. 'salem' Salem Littleleaf Linden 11 T. c. 'rancho' Rancho Littleleaf Linden 11.7 T. c. 'chancellor' Chancellor Littleleaf Linden 12 T. c. 'june bride' June Bride Littleleaf Linden 11 T. c. 'glenleven' Glenleven Littleleaf Linden 12 T. c. 'olympic' Olympic Littleleaf Linden 12 T. euchlora Crimson Linden 11.8 T. e. 'redmond' Redmond Crimean Linden 11.9 T. europea European Linden 12 T. mongolica Mongolian Linden 10.5 Ulmus glabra Scotch Elm 11 U. g. `camperdownii' Camperdown Elm 12.9 U. pumila Siberian Elm 12.9 Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova 12.9 Z. s. 'halka' Halka Zelkova 12 Z. s. 'green vase' Green Vase Zelkova 12 Z. s. 'village green' Village Green Zelkova 13 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 8 OF 14 II—SOLAR UN-FRIENDLY TREES Botanical Name Common Name Rank Acer campestre Hedge Maple 12.1 A. ginnala Amur Maple 12.2 A. macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 14.6 A. negundo Box Elder 13 A. platanoides 'Cleveland' Cleveland Norway Maple 13.5 A. p. 'emerald lustre' Emerald Lustre Maple 13 A. p. 'fassens black' Fassens Black Norway Maple 12.8 A. p. 'summershade' Miller's Superform Norway 13.2 Maple A. p `royal crimson' Royal Crimson Norway Maple 13.5 A. rubrum `armstrong' Armstrong Red Maple 13.5 A. r. 'armstrong II' Armstrong II Red Maple 13.2 A. r. 'red sunset' Red Sunset Maple 13.5 A. r. x saccharinum 'autumn blaze' Autumn Blaze Maple 12.8 A. r. 'tilford' Tilford Red Maple 14 A. saccharum Sugar Maple 13.9 A. s. 'Newton sentry' Newton Sentry Sugar Maple 13.5 A. saccharinum Silver Maple 13.2 13.9 Aesculus carnea brioti Red Flowering Horsechestnut 13.5 A. hippocastanum Common Horsechestnut 13.3 Alnus glutinosa European Alder 12.5 A. rhombifolia White Alder 13.314 A. rubra Red Alder 13.3 Betula nigra Red Birch 12.5 B. nigra 'heritage' Heritage Birch 15 Carpinus betulus European Hornbeam 12.9 C. betulus 'columnaris' Columnar European Hornbeam 13.3 C. b.fastigiata Pyramidal European Hornbeam 14 Castanea mollissima Chinese Chestnut 13.4 Cercis siliquastrum Judas Tree 15 Crataegus `autumn glory' Autumn Glory Hawthorn 14 C. lavallei Lavelle Hawthorn 14.1 C. mollis sel #1 Downy Hawthorn (Sel#1) 14 C. monagyna 'stricta' Pyramidal Singleseed Hawthorn 13.5 C. oxycantha English Hawthorn 13.9 C. phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn 12.7 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 9 OF 14 C. x mordenensis 'snowbird' Snowbird Hawthorn 13 C.viridis 'winter king' Winter King Hawthorn 15 Fagus sylvatica European Beech 13.4 F. s. `fernleaf' Fernleaf European Beech 13.5 F. s. `golden' Golden European Beech 13.5 F. s. 'dawyck' Dawych European Beech 13.5 F. s. `roundleaf' Roundleaf European Beech 13.5 F. s. 'tricolor' Tricolor European Beech 13.5 Firmiana simplex Chinese Parasol Tree 13.5 Fraxinus oxycarpa 'flame' Flame Ash 13.2 Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweetgum 14.3 L. s. 'festival' Festival Sweetgum 14 Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree 13.6 Magnolia dawsoniana Dawson Magnolia 14 M. denudata Yulan Magnolia 13.5 M. kobus Kobus Magnolia 13.7 M. k. 'dr. merrill' Dr. Merrill Kobus Magnolia 14 M. sprengeri Sprengeri Magnolia 14 Malus 'adams' Adams Crabapple 13 M. 'beverly' Beverly Crabapple 15 M. 'bob white' Bob White Crabapple 14 M. 'centurion' Centurion Crabapple 15 M. 'donald wyman' Donald Wyman Crabapple 16 M.floribunda Floribunda Crabapple 14 M. 'koebil' Koebil Crabapple 13 M. 'ormiston roy' Ormiston Roy Crabapple 14 M. 'profusion' Profusion Crabapple 14 M. 'red jewel' Red Jewel Crabapple 13 M. 'robinson' Robinson Crabapple 17 M. 'snowdrift' Snowdrift Crabapple 15 M. 'white angel' White Angel Crabapple 13 Melia azedarach Chinaberry 13 M. s. umbraculiformis Umbrella Chinaberry 13 Morus alba White Mulberry 13.2 M. a. 'kingan' Fruitless Mulberry 13 Parrotia persica Persian Parrotia 14.3 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 10 OF 14 Platanus acerifolia London Planetree 13.7 P. occidentalis American Planetree 13.5 P. racemosa California Planetree 14 Populis alba White Poplar 13 P. a. bolleana Bolleeana White Poplar 14 P. canadensis eugenei Carolina Poplar 15 P. nigra Black Poplar 14.7 P. n. 'lombardy' Lombardy Black Poplar 14.7 P. trichocarpa California Poplar 13.8 Prunus cerasifera 'Mt. St. Helens' Mt. St. Helens Plum 16.5 P. c. 'pissard' Pissard Myrobalan Plum 13 P. virginiana 'canada red' Canada Red Chokecherry 14 P. padus European Birdcherry 13 Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear 14.8 P. c. 'chanticleer' Canticleer Callery Pear 12.8 P. c. 'rancho' Rancho Callery Pear 12.9 P. c. 'redspire' Redspire Pear 16 P. c. 'aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear 15 P. communis Common Pear 13.8 Quecus alba White Oak 13.3 Q. lobata Valley Oak 14 Q. macrocarpa Bur(Scrub) Oak 13.7 Q. palustris Pin Oak 13.3 Q. phellos Willow Oak 14.8 Q. robur English Oak 14.6 Q. rubra Northern Red Oak 13.7 Q. shumardi Shumard Oak 14.4 Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 11.6 R. p. ambigua Flowering Globe Locust 13 R. p. umbraculifera Globe Locust 13 R. p. `inermis' Globe Locust 15 Salix alba 'weeping gold' Weeping Gold Weeping Willow 16 S. babylonica Babylon Weeping Willow 16.2 S. matsudana Hankow Willow 14.3 Sorbus aucuparia 'columbia Columbia Queen Mountainash 13 queen' S. a. 'black hawk' Blackhawk Moutainash 13 S. a. 'cherokee' Cherokee Mountainash 13 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 11 OF 14 S. thuringiaca `fastigiata' Oakleaf Mountainash 15 Tilia americana American Linden 13.1 T.tomentosa Silver Linden 13.5 T. platyphyllos Bigleaf Linden 13.3 Ulmus americana American Elm 13.3 U. carpinifolia Smoothleaf Elm 16 U. parvifolia Chinese Elm 13 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 12 OF 14 III—TREES NOT RANKED Botanical Name Common Name Acer rubrum 'shade king' Shade King Red Maple A. r. 'excelsior' Excelsior Red Maple Amelanchier canadensis columnaris Upright Serviceberry A. c. oblongifolia Globe Serviceberry Aralia chinensis Chinese Aralia Fagus grandiflora American Beech Fraxinus bungeana Bunge Ash F. excelsior'lucerne' Lucerne European Ash Laburnum watererii Waterer Laburnum Liquidamber formosana Chinese Sweetgum Malus floribunda Floribunda Crab M. 'hope' Hopa Crab M. hupensis Tea Crab M. 'katherine' (no common name listed) M. micromalus Midget Crab Photinia villosa Oriental Photinia Platanus orientalis Oriental Planetree Populus deltoidies Eastern Poplar Prunus serrulata oh-nanden Nanden Cherry P. s. `shiro-fugen' Shiro-fugen Cherry P. s. `shogetsu' Moon Hanging Low By A Palm Tree P. s. `tai-haku' Great White Cherry P. s. `ukon' Ukon Cherry P. padus 'purpurea' Purpleleaf Birdcherry Pyrus calleryana 'princess' Princess Pear P. pyrifolia Sand Pear Quercus douglasii Blue Oak Sassafras albidum Common Sassafras LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 13 OF 14 Sorbus aria White Beam Mountain Ash Tilia cordata `bicentennial' Bicentennial Littleleaf Linden Ulmus hollandica Dutch Elm U. parvifolia 'drake' Chinese Elm U. p. 'true green' Chinese Elm U. procera English Elm Zelkova sinica Chinese Zelkova Sources: • Solar Friendly Tree List, City of Portland, (n.d.) • Solar Characteristics for Tree Species, City of Corvallis, (n.d.) • Solar Friendly Trees, City of Salem, (n.d.) • Portland Solar Access Vegetation Research Report,June, 1984. • Sunset Western Garden Book, 1985. • Solar Friendly Tree Committee, formed Dec. 11, 1986. Appendices: Not Included A. Members serving on Solar Friendly Tree Committee. B. Participants in the Solar Friendly Tree Project Seminar, Dec. 11, 1986. C. Ranking classifications chart. D. Climatic vegetation zone, Zone 6 map. LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 14 OF 14 EXHIBIT F-2 Solar Friendly Tree Report—Appendices LU 18-0035 A. Members serving on Solar Friendly Tree Committee B. Participants in the Solar Friendly Tree Project Seminar, Dec. 11, 1986 C. Ranking classification chart D. Climatic vegetation zone, Zone 6 map LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 1 OF 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 2 OF 8 Appendix A: SOLAR FRIENDLY TREE COMMITTEE Noble Bashor Alex Wynstra Parks Supervisor City Forester City of Salem 10910 North Denver 555 Liberty Street Portland, OR 97217 Salem, OR 97301 John Etter Michael Rider Asst. Superintendent Tree Trimmer Parks Planning& Development 555 Liberty Street, S.E. City of Eugene Salem, OR 97301 858 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 Steve Lindsey Gary Grayson Community Development Department Tree Inspector City of Corvallis Forestry Division PO Box 1083 10910 North Denver Corvallis, OR 97339 Portland, OR 97217 Jim McCausland Mark Handy Associate Editor Handy Nurseries Sunset Magazine 17001 NE Sandy Boulevard 600 Logan Street Portland, OR 97230 Seattle,WA 98101 Mike Mosher John Warner Planning Coordinator Landscape Architect Bureau of Parks and Recreation Warner& McCarter Associates City of Portland 519 SW Third Avenue, Suite 805 10910 North Denver Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97212 Dr. R. L.Tichnor Oregon State University Mariel Ames North Willamette Experiment Station Ames Associates 15210 NE Miley Road 2066 S. Glenmorrie Drive Aurora, OR 97009 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Keith Warren J. Frank Schmidt Nurseries P.O. Box 189 Boring, OR 97009 LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 3 OF 8 Appendix B: SOLAR ACCESSIBLE TREE PROJECT: Participants in December 11, 1986 Seminar Noble Bashor Allen Love Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Eugene Planning Department City of Salem Jim McCausland Jon Biemore Associate Editor Public Relations Sunset Magazine Bonneville Power Administration Bob Minter Betsy Brinkley Bureau of Energy Community Development Department Water Resources Department City of Salem State of Idaho Gloria Carter Mike Mosher Contract Office Park&Street Tree Division Bonneville Power Administration City of Portland Gail Curtis Robert Thayer Portland Bureau of Planning Professor of Environmental Design Department of Landscape Architect John Etter University of California Parks Planning& Development Dr. R. L.Tucker Gary Grayson North Willamette Experiment Station Tree Inspector Oregon State University Portland Forestry Division John Warner Mark Handy Warner and McCarter Associates Handy Nursery Company Keith Warren Nancy Hanna J. Frank Schmidt Nurseries Washington State Energy Office Alex Wynstra David Hewitt City of Portland Forester Director Portland Energy Office Norm Holm Alan Kiphut Planning Director Project Manager City of Nampa Portland Energy Office LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 4 OF 8 John Kaufman Mariel Ames Department of Energy Consultant State of Oregon Ames Associates Steve Lindsey Ned Ames Community Development Department Ames Associates City of Corvallis Mike McKeaver Solar Consultant Conservation Management Services LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 5 OF 8 Appendix C: RANKING CARD Crown Leaf Drop Leaf Out Area HxW Growth Rate Density* Numerical 2 1 1 1 1 Rankings Not Dense Early Late Small Slow (Less than 20% (Early drop) (Late leaf out) (20' ht. or less (Less than density) x width) 12"/year) „ 4 2 2 2 2 Med Dense Midway Midway Medium Medium (20%-50% (Mid-drop) (Mid leaf-out) (21-60' ht. x (13" to density) width) 24"/year) " 6 3 3 3 3 Dense Late Early Lar�e Fast (50%or more (Late drop) (Early leaf-out) (60' ht. x (25" +/year) density) width) Note: *Crown density was given twice the numerical ranking of the other criteria, since it is the most significant factor in determining solar friendly qualities of a tree. LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 6 OF 8 Appendix D: CLIMATE MAP _ � � � 5re Pe�ge 36 pprtfexd�MifdlaWild 4 ��y�� 7n�a�r�fe��vlrera crfr�air:aurlCs eas:cf L r�eCo[.��1�s.�vrli7sca.�:5��a�fhloilgh Ga1W1n5r�G��ryeaf!�aa�rie�rY�gSp8P0. 'heloria ' •Long��ew R�eyhr!edsl Pvr:lari�lydru�rid uSiiAi7y s j� C.rfvPS�U#h:SOf+�Ptlm2Si[ir21�Al+'C�.s �!ea��o M17rhvauk+e.J�;vi+lrue rn[h� �+�d� °.,.K;artc�araa essr c�hrtersrste 7�5. � � i� �f.� � F{ � �kf � �'� �J ;a;;ri�rreas wl�css hi�r8s heari�p weR rn , � c a!arnrs fw rxar.�ple.!�lack waJnut. ...�i.�C. r�,'e��,:,�idsrYePfyurn. .��• :. — 'y .k �,._ , 3A y�T" •Yanoouvar .yfµ`�� xr, �` �''�� •�ari6eldl POfSfdfldi r�� RI� 3a Van�'bW.ee � . . . F110 [ a � ,~ .nnarncak �aave . � �ewes 1 `'«BfYQ �(' .�•��—��- .IMlwe�iqe .. �. .ia. r"'�'" �H°o°�_ Ne.ytiurg. . r�f7. smn w .� � rrava � � MIAvtl�kir +g� y�y �y ' �y t �� .�4�y,� � MCMInnu�Ae• � WiJJametre Valfey fs&erry Cwrrrlry � ��ke'rV�r�a.2re:Fe V.�fleY rs ar�1r.+6u� SV�1f.'!P.�M4'�onflr r�;r#r rf rrea allhe SefCn7. r.nuntry'P,r:merr.g�ansfor�rowi��g ik •� '� hr�ys�rrAr��re.s,h!ar.7�.wr��s.rdd �nspberr�es.++rdsurli wir;e9'�A�$ � � � a:Grd�an.�rBY,Prnpf.'4�7fr,ernrlHtesrmg .NewParl �..a3hHny Nawae• corvairis,' .wawpx� � `� irn � � O � A9�Id� 1 ?f� I , � REGDN .��, .�. Eugene. •Spr�ngfKla Pscific § � Ocean .qeaU�Pa1 �p Avin• Q /� � ��e •� •Coqullle 4 +Fioee6ug •9andon 1� � � ` � � crater � ," �A Laxe •��+�s Fr+e.r i o�ro �.�.� _ i i . Griu+Rq J� � � in 1 p �aec �rh M 5 !ff#P. 3� �h4edFord• �� •w8R181�1 � F�118 i .@rooWngs 7 1�1 A.ldand• R 6 _" ' ___ ____________"___________________ gqqPpgoa3_____ 0 +� :'.0 'iCnih� CALIFQRNIA i � '�"�"'" Cli � ; �k3tQ � I_I1A 3A;3S�rs fi 7 i �t7 t� LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 7 OF 8 ZONE 6:Willamette Valley—Partly Marine Influence, Partly Interior A somewhat longer growing season and warmer summers set the Willamette Valley climate off from the coast-Puget Sound Climate (Zone 5). The Coast Range tempers the coastal winds and somewhat reduces the rainfall, but the climate of the valley is still essentially maritime much of the year, hence getting much less winter cold and less summer heat than areas east of the Cascades. Average lows are similar to those of the coast-Puget Sound zone—even slightly colder in some places— but summer high temperatures average 5°to 9°warmer, warm enough to put sugar in the Elberta peaches and to speed growth of such evergreens as abella and nandina. The long, mild growing season has made the Willamette Valley one of the West's great growing areas for nursery stock. Many of the West's (and the nation's)fruit and shade trees, deciduous shrubs, and broad-leafed evergreens started life here. Any mention of the Willamette Valley must include roses and rhododendrons, both of which attain near- perfections here. Broad-leafed evergreens generally are at their clean, green best: choice rhododendrons, azeleas, and pieres grow as basic landscaping shrubs. Source: Sunset New Western Garden Book, 1985, with colored map provided by 2001 edition LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 8 OF 8 EXHIBIT F-3 LU 18-0035 From: Donnelly,Jennifer [mailto:lennifer.donnelly@state.or.us] Sent:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:50 AM To: Hamilton, Leslie<Ihamilton@ci.oswe�o.or.us> Subject: LU 18-0035/Lake Oswego 005-18 PAPA Hi Leslie— I was just reviewing the City's proposed code changes. I have a question about item 1. I was curious if the City considered increasing the setbacks for the lower density lots that would be abutting the higher density lots? It seems that the lower density lots would have more room to allow for more generous structural setbacks and may encourage better design while not creating a potential barrier to the higher density lots. From the City staff report. Item 1: Increased Setbacks on High Density Lots (Page 1 of Attachment 2): On lots zoned R-0, R-2 and R- 3 (High Density Residential), setbacks are increased where there is an abutting lot that is low density(R- 7.5, R-10 or R-15). However, under current code,the zoning of abutting unincorporated properties is not considered.The standard for increased setbacks is expanded to apply where unincorporated lots, upon annexation, would be zoned low-density.This amendment requires Measure 56 Noticing. Cheers, jennifer Jennifer ponnelly � Metro Regional Representative Community Services Division Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Portland Metro Regional Solutions 1600 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 109 � Portland, OR 97201 Office: (503) 725-2183 � Cell: (971) 239-9451 jennifer.donnelly@state.or.us � www.ore�on.�ov/LCD/ PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. LU 18-0035 EXHIBIT F-3/PAGE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT G-1 LU 18-0035 From: Leah Puhlman [mailto:lpuhlman@�mail.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:47 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie<Ihamilton@ci.oswe�o.or.us>; Heape, Robert<rob@heape.net>; Siegel, Scot <ssie�el@ci.oswe�o.or.us> Subject: LU 18-0035 I was hoping to make it to the meeting tonight to speak about this issue, but I have a scheduling conflict. I apologize for the late submittal. The only item I wanted to comment on is the proposal to move the deadline for comment to 12:00 pm on the day of the hearing, instead of the existing 5:00 pm deadline. I agree that this will be much better for the staff and would be happy to support it IF citizens were given more time to comment. The two week period is just not reasonable to make informed comment. This year we ( my neighbors in the FHNA)_have had several items come up that we wished to be involved in. Both the city staff and developers are well versed in the codes, and may not understand how difficult it is for residents to comprehend what the codes require and what our options are. Most of us work full time, and we are given two weeks to understand the issues and codes, come up with comments, suggestions, and objections, citing the specific codes that concern us. We have tried twice this year to find an attorney to advise us, but the time frame and scarcity of land use attorneys who do not have conflict of interest and time to look at our case has caused a great deal of grief. This summer we received notification of a Land Use issue when most of our FHNA board and many residents were on vacation. In the interest of ineaningful citizen involvement, I ask that the Planning Commission make an amendment to the Community Development Code that gives residents a minimum of three weeks to respond and comment. I am sure we would be happy to give up the extra 5 hours with if we had more time to research codes, find legal help if necessary, and draft meaningful comments. Thank you for considering this request. Leah Puhlman Ipuhlman(c�qmail.com 503-502-9819 www.commonsenseinteriors.com LU 18-0035 Page 1 of 1 � PLANNING AND � 6 U I L D I N G S E RV I C E S � s � i � LU 18-003 5 Cit Council Public Hearin y � An n ua I Code Amend ments - 2018 N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 8 Solar Code Amendments • Replaces "exempt" and "non-exempt" vegetation with "solar-friendly" and "solar-unfriendly" vegetation • Deletes Solar Access Permit • Applies Solar Access Standard to residential subdivisions (4+ lots) and not partitions (2-3 lots) Other Si nificant Amendments g • Utility Undergrounding: Appropriate exceptions to undergrounding requirement (ADUs, remodels, partitions), and cleans up references • Increases setbacks on high-density lots that abut lots that will be low-density upon annexation • Clarifies that Uplands Overlay standards on height and impervious surfaces apply to all lots (flag and non-flag) • Written Testimony submittal for report production only moved from 5 pm to noon Remainin Amendments g • Corrects adjacent/abutting reference • Deletes reference to a Comp Plan policy that no longer exists • Corrects a reference to the number of dwellings an access lane can serve (three) • Deletes waiver for light trespass, per Cosner v. Umatilla • Clarifies headings in �ighting standards table • Updates decision deadline ( 100 days) for multi-family projects with 50% affordable units, per ORS • Moves shrubs out of Tree section in Native Plant List Solar Code/Metro olitan Access Pro'ect p J ( 1988) • 21 jurisdictions in Portland/Vancouver metro area • Developed uniform solar codes : Solar Access, Solar Balance Point, Solar Access Code, Solar Definitions • 5 jurisdictions have all four components • Beaverton only maintained Solar Access Permit • Three maintained only Solar Access and Solar Design • Twelve have no solar code (either never adopted, or deleted ) So I a r Access • 80% of lots must meet a Solar Access design ( Basic, PSBL, Performance) Figure 1.Frant Lot Line . ...l�lag Fro�3� � ^ ^ , l..nil.ine �FR43N7'16TLINE 1�\ ( � �\' ' � Vnrmali'ron� � �J ,. ts[�� I a1 a..lASC . � , . _ _ � s ,�� a _ ,� � �� TR � 5453 i 6'� y� -- � A � 5431 s� �� 7 ilfow Ct i'•.. � �� ,��`� '�.�,�,�,�� 500 TR 5434 ... ��'l �.o��..�e B 5456 j %.'• � TRACT A Figure 2.Northern Lot Line `�oo � s�� ••� -` � � V '?i � ' �9�degrees s ��s � ��,\ � " �� " , �n�,��„�.o,�.,,;e _ �� U, 3 12 NoH�e,.� 4 11 ' Lo�Line �'. . � � � H ____ - :. cs+ _. � o� 1 p So I a r Access • Protected Solar Building line : a line that identifies the location on a lot where a poi nt 2 feet a bove may not be shaded . � �� . �� PSBL¶ o - - -- -- ,-,� � s?� �� ,` �� o � 4j� �3�a, , � � � sr, '`� � Q,�� ``" --- � `n i, 13580 � TR � 5453 '''� 6'� S.L 70•feet¶ '�---�- ;� o �'+ c�n '4 � 4' � ...`� 5S'3.................� �•........1 � -___ - IIOW Ct 5431 il � ��c9 ��5 — — _ _ = - 50� TR 5434 �'•..' �� R-1� � ivlidpoint•of•lots• � 13 B 5456 j ��' � to�the�south¶ TRACT A � � R' � 76�0 �. �c�� •�0 �'J 1 � � � _� W � axe� ,p�� J` � � '�� 4 s�� s �`� u' cr cr 3 �2 o � 4 11 � , , �, o� So I a r Access • Performance Option : Dwelling orientation, shading, and glazing. -Habitable structures have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of true east-west AND at least 80% of the ground floor south wall is protected from shade. -Habitable structures have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 sq . ft. of their roof area which faces 30 degrees of south AND is protected from shade. Solar Access - Exem tions p • Slope more than 20% more than 45 degrees of east-west • On- or off-side shade that will remain So I a r Access - Ad ' u st m e nts 1 • Density affected by slope, significant natural feature, existing road patterns • Site development cost increased by 5% per lot. • Significant development amenities ( undefined ) lost by complianceand marketvaluesignificantlydiminished • Existing shade over 80% of lot; shade to remain So I a r Access Pe rm it • Allows a property owner to protect a solar feature from future shade emanating on a different property • The applicant records the height restrictions on all burdened properties, and the burdened property owner is responsible for paying all costs associated with keeping the vegetation from exceeding the solar access height limit • No record of City issuing a Solar Access Permit 1 • � PCWS #1 PCWS #2 Public Review PC Hearing PC Hearing/ CCPH Draft Findings . � - . - . - • : • . . . - . . - . � . . . - - . . 9.1 o�tiA ��o�,� C�UhJCfL REP�RT � '� � �` '�� n v o QR��D� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Scott Lazenby, City Manager Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director SUBJECT: ANNEXATION AND SERVICE TO UNINCORPORATED AREAS—ACTION DATE: October 9, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 MOTION Move to adopt: 1. Resolution 18-49, Policy on Service Availability for Annexations 2. Resolution 18-50, Service Delivery to Unincorporated Areas EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its September 18 study session, the City Council discussed options for annexing property, extending infrastructure, delivering city services more efficiently, and providing greater incentive for property owners in the unincorporated areas to annex. The November 6 meeting is intended to take action on related policy changes. On September 18, the City Council directed staff to assist unincorporated areas within the city's urban services boundary that have shown interest in annexation by providing facts about the costs and benefits of coming into the city.The November 6 meeting provides an opportunity to take another step in implementing the 2018 City Council goal to "reconsider the Council Policy on annexation" by formalizing the City policies on service delivery for annexations (avoiding cherry-stem or piecemeal annexations) and where practical, reducing the subsidization of residents of unincorporated areas by Lake Oswego taxpayers. DISCUSSION/ RECOMMENDATIONS Part 1 - Service Availability for Annexations As discussed in the three prior City Council study sessions on annexation, the existing lot-by-lot pattern of annexation, including the practice of annexing street right-of-way in order to annex remote lots that would not otherwise be contiguous to the City ("cherry-stem annexations"), is 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 inefficient and creates service delivery issues for police patrol, utilities, street maintenance, and planning, among other city services. Therefore, the Council wants to discontinue this practice. In doing so, it must clarify where it considers city services to be "available." Ideally, annexations would occur voluntarily in large groups of lots or individual lots that are contiguous to other properties in the city where adequate infrastructure already exists and city services can be provided most efficiently. However, in practice, where property owners have functioning septic systems, this can be difficult to achieve. Resolution 18-49 Policy on Service Availability for Annexations (Attachment 1) implements the Council's intent by finding that city services are available—allowing annexation—only where the following criteria are met. There are two subsets to the policy recommendation: Annexation within Zone of Benefit, and Annexation with No Zone of Benefit. (Infrastructure required to serve annexing lots and any future development must be provided at the property owner's/developer's expense, consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The City may assist in the formation of local improvement districts to facilitate this.) 1. Annexation within Zone of Benefit. a. Allow annexation of individual lots or groups of lots. b. Allow cherry stem annexations only where the City Council finds that the annexation promotes more efficient delivery of city services to existing city residents. L_Y��=�"CJii�r��f li 5 �bs�o�}--c o 8��• 1�05.].r7� ELE=fVlE=f�ITAFZYa„S �1�0555M.a�'a� r>s�,��ys.� : ��r f�`J�� '��2$g �SMFI0fi084 MFIOEi4t8 SMH�fi�85 � ._ '� � 19G'..? ` r°v�� - ---_� � I5. ��;� �c�C� 19C(Sb �' � ' �j�°ti��' i-�� ;g��n i Pilkin�ton 190?0 � * _.a�' - �; �� - ' P.r�rl�. � � ^ _��r�;� fg,�l 19665 � sy, sie" �1�:=;� '�' 191�i , LA'F,E C�5'v�iEGO 1 G17� ,mnoeos� �84�SV`.;�GoI�L ,l�.�r..., i - j . . -- �o ,�_-�1�� 152�2 7 � __ � 19211 192�16 19201 /��,.-.. .. _� ` �?2j I �93?S c " ��,.. .. N�� 1`dL��t',- _ . . '�5'.=.r,- j�' 152�1 �19220�1@23� .. .. `' �� u 1G253 f,,�/i �, 1 ` � ,9z�'`- g�5 �„s � =i' g.ss��,,j!8-s :...�= 1�.. �1�-1—C�7C-16—C.i-1.��1i��d��1� 1•1 fJ 1'�5` ��f[}2�10C �i — —5f'�'�?ff�---��P:t�7� �J y Example of where over time cherry-stem annexation may be necessary to provide services efficiently to existing city residents(lots abutting streets with checkmarks) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 2. Annexation outside Zones of Benefit1 a. Allow annexation of lots and abutting right-of-way that complete or move toward completion of a block of incorporated lots. For the purposes of this Resolution, a "block" is a contiguous group of lots all fronting on the same street and bound by intersecting streets. b. Allow annexation of a lot or group of lots that have frontage on incorporated right-of-way and either abut or are adjacent to an incorporated lot on the same block(no new cherry stems). rrec c I.AKE C]ti+N�GC] 1$�T9 � -re•i iau `� q CC7UNFY �51�� F 1811 v `°rn m � - � 181i5 — ,- �_,_... __.1F}'l.�i.�. 1 .rs 1��00 1812� ; �� [y � _i N I W t 82�5 rn '� rn r�v c � w: � � tQ c � 8_s SiaEcrii�y�� w a�i,••`•- u Unincorporated lots with checkmarks have frontage on a city street and abut or are adjacent to an unincorporated lot on the same block. F m' N 00 4 61 � � N 07 Q�1 ;� � C31T 01 � N N m � O1 p bl _ j 5$$y �{� V V � v+ .�.... � ,raiv. .. U r1... , [5' �.;f�0 V+ T W ��'•' p C� 7eVe�i' 5785 W :;•. w .�'yp� �9 S� ��kNiihil�_• ...M1 r n N � 5788 �, � � � �" u � �� f � A A ' .s �,. p � � 1546(:• g8r� � L .C71 � � � ��- � .r_ ."� � p��, c�'�n o � Y� 7 5-070 rn �s r`^ � W y�J SLv�.. .' .�� :. . .. .:.-�.- _ �� .-PdTf�. • L�� ', � �� r-• .V1 Cf+ 6�1 � NA . W-.� �� eS' C��+ ., . � . . a o -� �'��`� �j � �o��_ � ma�- '� a;.. �m.. _.... ,.�.. ,r ' c'^��_'(. Example of a cherry stem lot(lighter lot surrounded by darker lots) that is inconsistent with policy 2.b. 1 The City currently has 17 zones of benefit.They were formed where a property owner,or the City itself,financed the extension of sewer lines into a neighborhood.Within the zones of benefit,there are approximately 54 lots that are not connected to sewer and have yet to annex,some due to the connection charges which increase annually. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 c. Allow annexation of unincorporated "islands" meeting the criteria of ORS 222.750. d. Allow annexation of individual lots or groups of lots that abut incorporated right-of-way and are large enough to be subdivided or re-platted into four or more lots in compliance with the provisions of the Community Development Code. . �� ..�... ',='LAKE GL��l1��;� - ��'J:.:�i 13Q6l�� . 1 rl 1�5(q a # si l='r/T- . 1�.: 1H04304J y LJlKEOS�,�,tC�4 L� � 13'�67 ; ��?� =u;0. ��,n�Tv 1E o`�' "'°��' �3�75 T-'� . L_ i TM" ��.,�a�oF; 51�3�6-003 1'f t �$Q 'y�\ �, ��.�� tlO6A�iFTO"F> yQ 1`"�� . 1 5 5 �3p_�g T!%N \' Sfl}10430� '�:9�� 1�55t •355� � � ' � L�a ' ��e� � � . �.93 r��'S � . � .. �� ; l, A]6q� � ��',S g 1�� `��oa � t��3�L�,f, �' r� .�„S�, � � �,�,��LZ "�miHoasz � �� .,,�'�;��' �'',h,e�l",sMrr _ti.�=,(121-�� sn�Kaa�d��-ti�r �>•, • , �'��,c;�•. .� Unincorporated Islands (checkmarks), including some lots that are large enough to be subdivided. 3. Failing Septic Systems Notwithstanding the above provisions, continue to allow connection to the city sanitary sewer utility prior to annexation if the property has a failing septic system, is within 300 feet of an existing city sanitary sewer line to which connection can be made, and the property owner signs a consent to annexation. However, annexation will be deferred until the property is eligible under Sections 1 or 2 of this policy. The City would defer annexation until a critical mass of lots in the vicinity is contiguous to the city and can be annexed consistent with the above criteria. This would provide a seamless transition from the old policy to the new policy. The property owner would pay out-of-city sewer rates until annexed. Analysis The above approach is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Urbanization Chapter- Annexation Policies C-3 and C-4, as follows: 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 C-3 Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide public services to existing City residents. C-4 Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the subject property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer, commensurate with the scale of the proposed development. In summary, the proposed policy is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It promotes maintaining the City's existing level of service standards, while approaching annexation in a more logical, timely, and efficient manner. The proposed resolution is also consistent with our Urban Growth Management Agreement with Clackamas County (Attachment 2), which requires that property owners within the city's Urban Services Boundary (USB) who want to develop connect to sanitary sewer and annex, but only where sanitary sewer is "legally and physically available". Resolution 18-49 defines service availability in this context. Pros and Cons Pros: More efficient extension of infrastructure and service delivery (police patrol, utilities, street maintenance, planning, code enforcement, etc.) to city residents. Mitigates impacts of growth on city residents and our unincorporated neighbors (storm drainage, traffic, pavement condition, etc.) where annexation is for development. More logical and efficient transitioning of street maintenance from County to City. Cons: Could lead to an increase in the number of septic system replacements where private systems fail and sewer service is no longer available. This in turn could delay or preclude annexation of some areas of within the USB. Replacement of conventional septic systems may not be feasible in some areas due to environmental conditions (high water table, etc.); this in turn could create pressure for cherry-stem annexations; however, these emergency situations already happen. Part 2 - Discontinuation of Some Service Subsidies to Unincorporated Areas Consistent with City Council's intent to focus city resources on services to city residents and minimize financial subsidies to the unincorporated areas, Resolution 18-50 directs or initiates the following policy changes: 1. Require that members of city boards, commissions, and advisory committees be city residents, due to the role that members have in recommending capital projects, 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 6 programs and services with potential costs to city residents. Exceptions as recommended are for: a. business and property owners serving on ad hoc committees whose focus is economic development, business, or similar issues; b. unincorporated residents/property owners serving on ad hoc committees whose focus is annexation or similar issues pertaining directly to unincorporated areas; c. representatives of public agencies and non-profit organizations whom the City consults in developing or implementing City plans, policies, or programs; d. positions with occupational requirements where there is a lack of qualified City residents. The resolution directs staff to prepare an ordinance amending LOC Chapter 12.51 City Boards and Commissions. 2. Do not waive (subsidize)the development review appeal fee for City-recognized neighborhood associations where less than 50% of the neighborhood association is incorporated either by land area or by number of lots. This fee is currently waived for all recognized neighborhood associations. Attachment 3 prepared by the City's GIS staff provides the percentages of incorporated and unincorporated land area and number of lots by neighborhood association. The resolution directs staff to prepare amendments to the Master Fees and Charges Schedule for adoption in December. 3. Discontinue funding of neighborhood services, including neighborhood plans, zoning overlays, grants, funding of neighborhood association mailings, free use of city-owned meeting space, and insurance subsidy (through Neighborhood Coalition of Lake Oswego), where less than 50%the neighborhood association area is incorporated either by land area or by number of lots. The City would continue to send legal notices and courtesy copies of the Planning Commission's agendas electronically to all recognized neighborhood associations. The resolution directs staff to prepare amendments to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines, Neighborhood Resource Handbook, and any other applicable documents implementing this policy. 4. Maintain the current Police protocol for critical incidents- "Respond and stabilize until Sheriff Deputy arrives." This is as recommended by Chief of Police Dale Jorgensen. 5. Maintain Intergovernmental Agreements for fire and emergency medical services with Lake Grove Fire District, Riverdale Fire District and Alto Park Water District where Lake 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 7 Oswego and the Districts both benefit by maximizing the use of existing public resources. This is as recommended by Fire Chief Larry Goff. No further action is required at this time. 6. Annually review the fees for Parks and Recreation classes and activities, and fees for use of City facilities, to maximize the discount provided to City residents, while ensuring a neutral or positive effect on revenue. If a City facility is at capacity, prioritize city residents over non-city residents. Currently, Parks charges non-residents at 1.5 times for program registrations and on January 1, 2019, the same rate will apply to park and facility reservations. City residents receive priority registration. The resolution accordingly directs staff and the Parks and Natural Resources Advisory Board to review the fees annually. ALTERNATIVES One option is the "do nothing" approach, with no change to the past pattern of lot-by-lot annexations, and continue providing the above services to the unincorporated areas.This approach may appear to have little or no organized opposition, but it is unfair to city residents who must pay for city services. One option is to increase the threshold for where the City would continue to provide services to unincorporated areas (e.g., more than 80% must be incorporated), or tailor the approach based on neighborhood characteristics. City grants and financial support to neighborhoods that are primarily unincorporated could continue, at Council's direction, if the neighborhood association institutes a mechanism to charge unincorporated residents a matching amount. For example, if a mailing for a neighborhood association that was 60% unincorporated costs $100, the city could contribute $40 if the remaining$60 were raised from unincorporated residents only. Another approach would be to change the definition of"recognized" neighborhood associations to exclude unincorporated properties. The downside to this is that these boundaries would change with every annexation, requiring staff time to track the changes and update city maps. Further, the neighborhood associations would have to continually update their membership and mailing lists. Finally, the associations are separate entities from the City; some are registered with the State of Oregon as non-profit corporations. It would be easier to specify the services the City provides (or no longer provides), as recommended above, and allow the organizations to govern themselves as they see fit. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 8 SOUTHWOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD The City Council has directed staff to work with the Southwood Park Water District and residents on a possible transfer of the water system and annexation to the City of Lake Oswego. An annexation election could occur as early as May of 2019. If the residents voted to annex, their property taxes would increase by approximately ten percent. The City Council can choose to phase in the property tax impact; we recommend phasing it in over not more than five years. The average water customer conservatively would see an increase of approximately$25 per month, or roughly double the current rate; the difference would be greater for customers using more water under our tiered water rates. Our plan is to operate their stand-alone water system as-is, at least for the foreseeable future as long as their well and other systems are functional. Eventually we would connect their system to the rest of the city supply. Here we recommend that the City Council set a policy of maintaining the current (lower) water rates for a period of five years, with only inflation adjustments, and then phasing in the city water rates in years six through ten. In past discussions, Southwood residents were told they would have to pay water systems development charges if they connected to Lake Oswego's system. We recommend that water SDCs be required only for new development (there is a potential for a small number of new homes in the neighborhood), and not for existing homes, since the district would be transferring substantial assets to the city. When the city water rates are phased in, the Southwood customers would be contributing to paying the debt service for the LOTWP project and other system improvements. RECOMMENDATION Accept public comment and adopt Resolutions 18-49 and 18-50 and provide direction on policy recommendations for Southwood annexation. ATTACH M ENTS 1. Resolution 18-49, Policy on Service Availability for Annexations 2. Resolution 18-50, Service Delivery to Unincorporated Areas 3. Unincorporated Lots and Land Area by Neighborhood 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 18-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADOPTING A POLICY ON SERVICE AVAILABILITY FOR ANNEXATIONS WHEREAS,the Lake Oswego City Council finds that: • The current piecemeal, lot-by-lot pattern of annexation, including annexing street right- of-way to annex lots that would not otherwise be contiguous to the city ("cherry stem annexations"), is inefficient and creates service delivery issues; • It is in the public interest to adopt a policy of accepting annexation petitions only where the size and location of the territory, or the circumstances of individual lots, are such that services can be delivered or extended logically and efficiently. • For the purposes of this policy,the term "lot" includes "parcel." NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. It is the policy of the Lake Oswego City Council that it will decline petitions for annexation of lots or territory that are not consistent with the following: 1. Annexation within Zones of Benefit a. Allow annexation of individual lots or groups of lots. b. Allow cherry stem annexations only where the City Council finds that the annexation promotes more efficient delivery of city services to existing city residents. L��F�"�`�U�/��f ; ,s �bs�� Q�` 8� 7i05�5j E=LE=IV1E=�I�TAF�1'g�,s 111o555M.o�;;�� °��i��ys. +I ��r f�`�� 1(��8g ISMH06084 MH0641B 1 SPr1H0�ip85 � ztyB.i-0�;� ��- .. '� � �9G u' � ro�� I- -- Pilkl � �v � �_ � . S ��c�_�Ca�c� �t9CG. .... +� �{a'�"•'"�hfield�t Q' , ��f�_____i �o��,y i ington 190?5: . �`�` � :�o R��rh - . � � iti �'[�i� Sn,�2 � 19065 � S� �c;C�" .;1��-iro . . _. _ 's 151pi LA�EO�'�r;EG� 191T� .ro�ri o soa� 5542 SV`. �oI�L � ,1,❑N,r I -- . `--� . U �-�o - . 1�2s"'�� !62�2 1� . 1921b 192�10�192q1 /h�.... ._ ._. .`'2�6 � .. 1--- y ul,n i52%k}� j'� 19221 i; 1P220��1�923u ... ]� 1G2�3 f,�/I .:ad� --- � _ r' `-" � � ,i , _ el�� -1�as�.-�a��y � �`s�� s `� : ��.. _ �r�-��f��d� �j. a 11U1�5��fU��1Cy Example of where over time cherry-stem annexation may be necessary to provide services efficiently to existing city residents (lots abutting streets with checkmarksJ Resolution 18-49 Page 1 of 4 2. Annexation outside Zones of Benefit a. Allow annexation of lots and abutting right-of-way that complete or move toward completion of a block of incorporated lots. For the purposes of this Resolution, a "block" is a contiguous group of lots all fronting on the same street and bound by intersecting streets. b. Allow annexation of a lot or group of lots that have frontage on incorporated right-of-way and either abut or are adjacent to an incorporated lot on the same block(no new cherry stems). ,•••� irec c +.nKE n5;^aFc;❑ 18179 �- - - "-� . .h1iJf�IC i r.o��N Rr - - 18119 � � A 1 E 181'E� ' � m � � 18115 ,— _..._�... _ 1�73� J rn .� ��o� I 1812� cn v� �i �:^ rs � W t 82T5 rn `�' rn r�v c � w: i � [Q c _• x c � grane�.��a � � ••� z.- Si�lEcnr�y �LC��c�j Frr ��i,� u Unincorporated lots with checkmarks have frontage on a city street and abut or are adjacent to an unincorporated lot on the same block. iF m' N 00 4 .6�1 W� Q nNl N O�i }� � O �1 ' � $$y � v+ su. :o:�'_ _ , `J ::�3$y� VV+ T �1 �� ' O � r..�... ie��", 5785 W '-''.w �,5p,� m ` :..1 S �E<t�iihil�_� . r � t.�i p J7$8 yr G °' � "` � � - '� r v a' ia �� `s- p � � A A 1546(:• s�sy� � L7 :J cn rr cn �� c5' n �� c�r �,,, � c°'�n o � p� ^ 15970� m �y`= �a �:ri�a ��--.� -� c�� u... ��. r."�� Lh . rr � •��:. f.0 La �...�- V� Cf� 6� � N a W ' �' � e3' C��+ . � cA a o— i .,�n`��..��,.,.��! � g�� _.... ,... — ,r.� . c.• �:..�: Example of a cherry stem lot(lighter lot surrounded by darker IotsJ that is inconsistent with policy 2.b. c. Allow annexation of unincorporated "islands" meeting the criteria of ORS 222.750. Resolution 18-49 Page 2 of 4 d. Allow annexation of individual lots or groups of lots that abut incorporated right-of-way and are large enough to be subdivided or re-platted into four or more lots in compliance with the provisions of the Community Development Code. ��AKE � `^ "�v� 1�56�� ,.f.,,' r, DSA+B�'� -O 1��0 O� I s I ' '``7 d � — "��T— � e.�Ho.uoa Lr�KE OS�,�,cGG _� � � 9;i5,1 � 13G67 7 sr�i7 0-. 1 c��„Nir 1 E � rrya°�,� J `'�l �ss�s�— r � � � '' �1H0430U 51�G403 t?'' ` j� _� \ �� r.� L'�l�.5�0 �-:. —�J tl064�`STitf06 �p 1y� . 1�bb 13� G �� u' �� '�35�� ti�iHo.�o . � � q��u'z ,�`,c�� i � � � �s� �� e.g� � �Zt)N�I-03 � . i � 2�S�� ; � �� 3�>�^ i s I '�---�_ 2.� +. . �_ i ��! ��'s2g�� oa _ ��` s �,� a'� � .rC��S j, � ,�51�Z '�P.1H 0432 � 't(�.'7P' � r.. 5�C-�',5 MH _a.��,(121.�� smirtoa��-Yjr��, �� :'„c, , � Unincorporated Islands (checkmarks), including some lots that are large enough to be subdivided. 3. Failing Septic Systems Continue to allow connection to the city sanitary sewer utility prior to annexation if the property has a failing septic system, is within 300 feet of an existing city sanitary sewer line to which connection can be made, and the property owner signs a consent to annexation. However, annexation will be deferred until the property is eligible under Sections 1 or 2 of this policy. Section 2. Compliance with this policy shall not be deemed to assure that the City Council will approve the annexation petition. All other legal and policy criteria for annexations continue to apply. Further, this policy shall not be construed as preventing the City Council from exercising its full discretionary authority in granting or denying annexation petitions as otherwise may be permitted by Oregon law and the Lake Oswego Charter. Section 3. This policy applies notwithstanding the election requirements of Section 57 of the Lake Oswego Charter, which requires a city-wide vote prior to annexation of properties within certain portions of the Stafford Area. If the owners of property in that area initiate or request annexation contrary to this policy, the City Council will decline to refer the proposed annexation for a vote under Section 57. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 6th day of November, 2018. Resolution 18-49 Page 3 of 4 AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAI N: Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Resolution 18-49 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION 18-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CONCERNING SERVICES TO UNINCORPORATED AREAS WHEREAS, the Lake Oswego City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the city to focus city resources on services to city residents and to minimize financial subsidies to unincorporated areas; NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. Staff is directed to present for City Council consideration an ordinance amending Article 12.51 of the Lake Oswego Code as follows: A. Changing the membership qualifications for the Historic Resources Advisory Board, Library Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning Commission, and 50+ Advisory Board to require that all members be residents of the city. B. Changing the membership qualifications for the Development Review Commission to require that all members be residents of the city, except when there is a lack of qualified resident applicants meeting the occupational requirements for a vacant position. C. Changing the membership qualifications for the Sustainability Advisory Board to no longer allow members that reside outside the city but within the city's Urban Services Boundary, but continuing to allow non-resident members who own businesses within the city or who are employed full-time within the city. D. Not changing the membership qualifications for: i. The Budget Committee (appointed members must be "electors of the city" per Oregon Local Budget Law); and ii. The Tourism Advisory Committee (not less than a majority must represent organizations and groups associated with tourism activities and attractions in Lake Oswego, local news media, hotels in Lake Oswego, and marketing professionals "who live or have their place of business in Lake Oswego.") Section 2. Staff is directed to present for City Council consideration an ordinance amending Article 12.50 of the Lake Oswego Code to require that all members of ad hoc citizen committees be residents of the city, except when the City Council determines in the resolution establishing the committee that: A. Non-resident business or property owners should serve on an ad hoc committee Resolution 18-50 Page 1 of 3 whose focus is on economic development, business, or similar issues; B. Residents or owners of unincorporated properties should serve on an ad hoc committee whose focus is annexation or similar issues pertaining directly to unincorporated areas; or C. Representatives of public agencies and non-profit organizations whom the city consults in developing or implementing city plans, policies or programs should serve on an ad hoc committee. Section 3. Staff is directed to present for City Council consideration an ordinance amending Chapter 50 of the Lake Oswego Code, as well as a resolution amending the Master Fees and Charges schedule, to discontinue the land use appeal fee waiver for city-recognized neighborhood associations where less than 50% of the neighborhood either by land area or by number of lots is within the incorporated city boundaries. Section 4. Staff is directed to present for City Council consideration amendments to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines, Neighborhood Resource Handbook, and other applicable documents to discontinue funding neighborhood services, including neighborhood plans, zoning overlays, grants, neighborhood associations' mailings, free use of city-owned meeting space, and insurance subsidies (through the Neighborhood Coalition of Lake Oswego) where less than 50% of the neighborhood either by land area or by number of lots is within the incorporated city boundaries. Section 5. This resolution does not direct any changes to the current Lake Oswego Police Department protocol for responding to critical incidents in the unincorporated area, or the current intergovernmental agreements for fire and emergency medical services with Lake Grove Fire District, Riverdale Fire District, and Alto Park Water District. Section 6. Staff and the Parks and Natural Resources Advisory Board are directed to annually review fees for parks and recreation classes and activities, and fees for use of city facilities, to maximize the discount provided to city residents while ensuring a neutral or positive effect on revenue. If a city facility is at capacity, city residents should be prioritized over non-city residents. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 6th day of November, 2018. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAI N: Resolution 18-50 Page 2 of 3 Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Resolution 18-50 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 NA ACRES Acres_City Acres_Out % In %Out Parcels Parcels In Childs 115 114 1 99% 1% 207 206 Westlake 299 299 0 100% 0% 504 504 Mountain Park 683 683 0 100% 0% 2825 2825 Old Town 47 45 2 96% 4% 167 167 Glenmorrie 157 157 0 100% 0% 235 235 Oak Creek 277 203 74 73% 27% 1087 786 Forest Highlands 536 406 130 76% 24% 844 718 Lakeview-Summit 142 142 0 100% 0% 316 316 Hallinan 204 204 0 100% 0% 712 711 North Shore Country Club 275 275 0 100% 0% 236 236 Evergreen 98 98 0 100% 0% 374 374 First Addition-Forest Hills 393 389 4 99% 1% 943 943 Foothills 106 106 0 100% 0% 165 165 Birdshill 192 29 163 15% 85% 199 35 Lakewood 131 131 0 100% 0% 410 410 McVey-South Shore 272 272 0 100% 0% 752 752 Palisades 857 856 1 100% 0% 1627 1627 Blue Heron 206 206 0 100% 0% 545 545 Bryant 420 415 5 99% 1% 1238 1228 Rosewood 332 67 265 20% 80% 907 129 Uplands 301 301 0 100% 0% 441 441 Lake Grove 333 325 8 98% 2% 644 629 Holly Orchard 94 94 0 100% 0% 301 301 Waluga 212 212 0 100% 0% 461 461 Lake Forest 624 314 310 50% 50% 1311 518 Westridge 105 95 10 90% 10% 223 210 John's Woods 29 29 0 100% 0% 79 79 Skylands 163 54 109 33% 67% 141 40 Total 7603 6520 1083 86% 14% 17894 15591 Parcels Out % In %Out 1 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 301 72% 28% 126 85% 15% 0 100% 0% 1 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 164 18% 82% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 10 99% 1% 778 14% 86% 0 100% 0% 15 98% 2% 0 100% 0% 0 100% 0% 793 40% 60% 13 94% 6% 0 100% 0% 101 28% 72% 2303 87% 13% Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Chuck And Dee Gray <wcgarep@frontier.com> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 5:18 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Neighborhood Association and Citizens Disenfranchised Councilors: We strongly oppose any changes in the citizen involvement guidelines that will eliminate resident input from current neighborhood associations. Sincerely, Chuck and Dee Gray Rosewood Neighborhood Association Sent from my iPad i Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Louise O'Neill <louise18651@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 2:32 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Neighborhood Association and Citizens Disenfranchised Importance: H ig h Councilors: I strongly oppose any changes in the citizen involvement guidelines that will eliminate resident input from current neighborhood associations. Sincerely, Louise O'Neill Rosewood Neighborhood Association i Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Louise O'Neill <louise18651@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2018 5:00 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Agenda City Council Meeting November 6 Election Day! As a homeowner in the Rosewood area: I request that the subject of Annexation and Service to Unincorporated Areas be moved from the November 6 agenda to another date. By design,you have once again scheduled significant issues affecting residents in unincorporated areas at a time and day when attendance is expected to be low- November 6 is Election Day, homeowners work and you put us at an unfair disadvantage. Louise O'Neill 1 Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Birdshill CPO/NA <birdshill.cpo.na@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 2:39 PM To: bcc@co.clackamas.or.us; metrocouncil@oregonmetro.gov; cranstok@loswego.kl2.or.us; Birdshill CPO/NA; Council Distribution; Powell, David; Nick Fish; MayorWheeler@portlandoregon.gov; Studebaker, Kent Cc: Skip Ormsby; Bill Ward; ccichair@yahoo.com; CPO Summit; Gary Stein; McCaleb, Iris; PUBLIC_AFFAIRS Subject: LO City Council and New Annex Policies to be enacted 2018 Nov OS Monday 14:30 U (2:30 PM PT) Charles Ormsby (Skip) Co-Chair Birdshill CPO /NA LO School District Clackamas County Board of Commissioners Metro Council Elected officials of Portland Mayor and Elected officials of LO Subject: LO City Council and New Annex Policies to be enacted Good Afternoon: I have spent about 8 hours extracting documents from City of Lake Oswego Council meeting website to make make them accessible, today and in the future. On 2018 Nov 06 Tuesday 15:00 U (3:00 PM PT) the 2017-2018 Lake Oswego City Council will consider, likely approve, and enact two resolutions to establish revised annexation policies per a 2018 January Lake Oswego City Council Goal. Both resolutions take effect upon passage. NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS WAS FOLTND LTNTIL 2018 NOV 02 FRIDAY circa 20:00 U (8:00 PM PT) Passage of the resolutions will set back Citizen Involvement nearly twenty (20) years or more. Practically nearly sixty(60) years to the time circa 1961-1964 when an alignment of I-205 was nearly approved to destroy Lake Oswego and obliterate my parents home on Birdshill Road. See: 1961 Dec OREG ATCL I-205 Thru LO n BH My mother is has now attained the young age of 104.25 as of 2018 Oct 31 Wednesday and still resides in the same home I keep a wary eye on local governments with the limited resources of time and money afforded to a 24x7 care giver to protect her quality of life. A quality that has been continuously challenged since I returned to Portland circa 2000. Resolution 18-50 is the most egregious and demonstratively disdainful of two resolutions being considered with utmost speed, lack of notification and discussion amongst ALL effected parties: neighborhoods,residents, school districts etc. See: 2018 Oct LOCM CNRP XAT02 RSLT 18-50 Especially those who may become "collateral damage". Why this course and speed of action has been chosen with its vile and vindictive underpinnings is known but to the City Manager of Lake Oswego and several 2017-2018 Lake Oswego Council members. Both Resolution 18-50 and 18-49 See: 2018 Oct LOCM CNRP XAT01 RSLT 18-49 should be tabled until after 2019 January. Perhaps for a new and enlightened collection of local government officials Above documents are extracted from a council report (CNRP) file See: 2018 Oct LOCM CNRP Annx Srvc CCLODIA BH posted within an interactive web agenda document See: AGIN LOCC 2018 Nov 06 Tu 15:00 U Agenda Item 09.01 — Annexation and Service to Unincorporated Areas Document context of this resolution: 1. Birdshill CPO/NA proceedings distillation (PDPA) for City of Lake Oswego Council meeting of 2018 Nov 06 Tuesday 15:00 U (3:00 PM PT) See: BH PDPA LOCC 2018 Nov 06 Tu 1500U 2. Birdshill CPO/NA document catalogue (DCPA) for City of Lake Oswego City Manager Office (LOCM) i Annexation Project (CM 2016-SNO1) Visit: BH Kn CM 2016-SN01 Annx Study Note this is a "synthetic case" file the LOCM has intentionally made document management nearly impossible to track for the uniformed. However I am former aerospace engineer (McDonnel Douglas, Boeing/Rocketdyne) and stubborn plus I desire public informed public involvement. Not the crass backroom dealings afforded the development community at the expense of existing neighbarhoods and residents therein. Including school children likely to be discriminated against as I was in the 1960s at the Lake Oswego School District, Forest Hills Elementary School. Due to facts including my family did not reside within the City limits of Lake Oswego. See: 2016 Jun BHCN DCPA CM 2016-SN01 GV 3. Map context of Clackamas County-Lake Oswego Urban Growth Management Agreement. See: 2018 Aug BHCN IGLB LO n CC DIA Nbads For your consideration. Someone needs to curtail the 2017-2018 Lake Oswego City Council and especially the current Lake Oswego City Manager before public discourse truly and irreversibly devolves. Thanks Skip Charles B. Ormsby(Skip) Birdshill CPO/NA,Co-Chair 2016—2017 A Joint Clackamas County Community Planning Organization City of Lake Oswego Oregon Neighborhood Association(NA) Locale(Centroid=Approximate Geographic Center) See: G CC BHCN-Underhill Rd/Midvale Rd(Street+Images) See: A CC BHCN-Underhill Rd/Midvale Rd(Topo) Clackamas County&Lake Oswego UGMA 170 SW Birdshill Road Portland Oregon 97219-8502 Phn:503.636.4483 Residence E-maiL birdshillcpona(�gmail.com Note Prep time of this email with research=5.0 hours. 2 Simpson, Anne-Marie From: catherine Simons <kaysimons5182@me.com> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 10:25 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Proposed Annexation/Neighborhood Associations and Citizens Disenfranchised So now you want to disenfranchise many citizens within Rivergrove/Rosewood Neighborhood Association. Are you afraid of what we might do or how we might vote? Shame on you! This is America, all voices should be heard and considered. Kay Simons Sent from my iPhone i 9.2 o�tiA ��o�,� C�UhJCfL REP�RT � '� � �` '�� n v o QR��D� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Ivan Anderholm CPRE, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: PARKS BOND RENEWAL SURVEY DATE: October 22, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the Community Perception Survey, Parks Bond Renewal Survey. BACKGROUND On September 18, 2018 City Council directed staff to pursue creation of a community survey, Community Perception Survey, to determine the support for renewal of Park Bonds. The Parks and Recreation Department contracted with Riley Research Associates to create a draft survey. The draft survey has been reviewed by three members of the Parks Board, and City Councilors were individually asked to review. DISCUSSION Are there additions to the survey? Are there reductions to the survey? FISCAL IMPACT The contract with Riley Research Associates is $20,000. RECOMMENDATION Move to approve the draft Community Perception Survey. ATTACH M ENTS 1. Draft Community Perception Survey 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.cit� ATTACHMENT 1 Lake Oswego Parks & Rec Community Perception Survey Questionnaire Draft Hello, my name is [First Name] with Riley Research Associates. We're calling on behalf of the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department, to listen to your thoughts on services and priorities. (As necessary) ■ The survey will take about 10 minutes ■ It is not a sales call and we are not soliciting anything; we are just interested hearing your thoughts about the Parks & Rec Department as well as some priorities for the future ■ Your responses will be anonymous and combined with hundreds of others S1. Do live in or outside of the City of Lake Oswego? (If"out" politely discontinue) ❑o, Inside(Continue) ❑oz Outside(Politely discontinue) Q1. First of all, when I mentioned the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department, what programs, services, and facilities come to mind?What else? (Do not read list. Multiple responses) ❑oi Swimming Pools ❑ia Natural areas ❑oz Arts and crafts ❑,4 Outdoor sports facilities ❑os Children's activities ❑,e Parks ❑04 Camps and clinics ❑,s Farm/Community garden ❑oe Community centers ❑,� Recreational sports/fitness ❑os Conference centers ❑,a Senior/Adult Community Center ❑o� Education/Classes ❑,s Sports leagues/activities ❑oa Elementary and middle school sports fields ❑zo Trails&Pathways ❑os Environmental education or protections ❑z, Tennis/Pickleball courts/facilities ❑,o Golf Course/golf programs ❑ss Dog parks ❑„ Health/Wellness activities ❑ss (Don't know/Not familiar) ❑,z Indoor sports facilities Q1 b. Other Q2. Which types of Lake Oswego Parks and Rec services or facilities, if any, have �or vour familv used in the past 12 months? (Mark all that apply) ❑o, Recreational sports or fitness programs ❑oa Parks or trails ❑oz Sports or leisure classes ❑os Environmental education or nature park lectures ❑oa Arts,craft or hobby classes ❑,o Sports fields,including area middle or elementary schools ❑04 Health or wellness programs ❑„ Youth camps(summer,winter,spring,school breaks,etc) ❑oe Team sports leagues(basketball,soccer,etc.) ❑,z Golf Course(Par 3) ❑os Recreational facilities(buildings) ❑,s Other(Please list): ❑o� Access to water/Swim park/Beaches ❑ss (None/Have not used any) Q2b. Other: �• RILEY RESEARCH ASSDCIATES � Using a one to ten scale, where 10 means "strongly agree," and 1 means "strongly disagree," to what extent would you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department? (Read list) (Rotate order Q3-Q5): Q3. Provides good value for your tax dollars Q4. Offers a good variety of programs, and activities Q5. Provides high-quality programs, and activities Q6. Offers a good variety of facilities Q7. Provides high-quality facilities Q8. And using a scale 10 being exceptional and 1 being poor, how would you rate the performance of Lake Oswego Parks and Rec Department overall? Q9. As you may know, Lake Oswego voters have approved several bonds over the years to fund various projects for the Parks and Recreation Department. And, as you may know, the bonds currently cost residents about twenty-four cents per thousand dollars of assessed property value or $96 per year for the average home, and over the next couple of years those bonds are set to expire. The city is considering putting a bond renewal on next year's ballot. If a Parks & Rec bond renewal plan designed to continue at no increase to tax payers, would you likely support or oppose that bond measure? (Strongly or somewhat?) ❑, Strongly support ❑s Somewhat oppose ❑z Somewhat support ❑s Strongly oppose ❑a (Unsure) ❑s (Refused) Q10. And what are the main reasons for your (support/opposition/uncertainty)? In addition to your thoughts about the proposed bond, the Parks & Rec Department would like to hear your thoughts about a list of some ten potential projects, along with the costs of those projects, which range from about one million to about 20 million dollars. As I read through the list of about 10 projects, please rate each idea, on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 means that project should be among the highest priorities, while a rating of 1 means the project should be considered a low priority. I'll describe the features along with the estimated cost, and ask you to quickly give me a number from 1 to 10: Q11.The first proposed improvement is building of a permanent home for the Parks and Recreation Department at the municipal golf course including space for community classes and programs, a gymnasium and community meeting spaces partially bond funded at total cost of 20M. How would you prioritize this project, one to 10? Question Language 1 — 10 �■ RiLEY RESEARCH ASSDCIATES 2 Q12 Develop appropriate access and parkin at Luscher Farm at a cost of 1.1 million. Q13 Expansion of Urban Agriculture at Luscher Farm including community garden plot and varied Communit Supported Agriculture CSA 1.5M Q14 Build a new artificial turf field at Rassehk, across from Luscher Farm, and convert existing baseball infields to artificial turf at Westlake and Geor e Ro ers at a cost of 6 million Q15 Replace and/or renovate park structures and restrooms at George Rogers, East Waluga, and Westlake Parks at a cost of 1.4 million Q16 Acquire park and open space land for future natural area development, based on Parks Plan 2025, targets are areas where parks are lacking at a cost of 3 million Q17 Construct improvements to Tryon Cove park at the mouth of Tryon Creek and Willamette River, including access, bridge to Foothills Park and park amenities at a cost of 4 million Q18 Replacement of the 15,000 square foot skatepark at a cost of 1.2 million Q19 Develop and construct improvements to Bryant Woods, Canal Acres, and River Run park, including trails, wetland enhancement, parking, and other amenities at a cost of 2.7 million Q20 Construct an environmental education classroom and renovation of the Firlane House at Luscher Farm for environmental education 1.5M Q21 Complete upgrades to the Adult Community Center's main floor, to optimize customer service and better utilize available space at a cost of 1 million Q22 Construct a lobby and upgrade ADA access to the existing Tennis Center at a cost of 1 million Q23 Construct a city-owned swimming pool in addition to the new School District pool at a cost of 13 million. Q24 Re-construct the existing par-3 municipal course into a 9-hole executive course and enlarge and improve the drivin ran e at a cost of 2.5 million Q25. As a follow-up, would you rather see the golf course improvements funded by the bond, or funded by selling 6 - 7 residential lots from the golf course? (Strongly or somewhat?) ❑, Strongly support use of a bond ❑s Somewhat support selling lots ❑z Somewhat support use of a bond ❑s Strongly support selling lots ❑s (Unsure/Depends/Neither/Don't care) ❑s (Refused) Q26. Was there any project mentioned — or aspect of Parks and Rec operations that might cause you to be less likelv to vote for the bond renewal? Q27. Now wrapping up and switching to community outreach, how do you typically get information or learn about services or programs provided by the Parks & Rec Department? (Do not read list. Multiple responses) ❑o, Lake Oswego Review ❑,z I call the Parks&Rec Department ❑oz Child's school/School ❑,a I talk with Parks&Rec employees ❑oa Department activities guide(online catalog) ❑,a WOM/Talk with friends/family ❑04 Department activities guide(printed catalog) ❑,e HeIloLO ❑oe Park&Rec.e-mail ❑,s Social Media ❑os Department Website ❑,� ❑o� Posters at facilities ❑,a ❑oa Metro Parent Magazine ❑,s ❑os Oregonian/A&E/OregonLive.com ❑zo ❑,o Local television news ❑sa Other(specify) ❑„ Local radio news ❑ss (Refused) �■ RILEY RESEARCH ASSDCIATES 3 Demographics Q28. Just a few questions to finish up: for about how many years have you lived in Lake Oswego? Years ...... Q29. In which neighborhood is your residence? ❑01 Birdshill ❑ 02 Blue Heron ❑ 03 Bryant ❑ 04 Childs ❑ 05 Evergreen ❑ 06 Foothills ❑ 07 Forest Highlands/First Addition ❑ 08 Forest Hills ❑ 09 Glenmorrie ❑ 10 Hallinan ❑ 11 Holly Orchard ❑ 12John's Woods ❑ 13 Lake Forest(Unincorporated) ❑ 14 Lake Grove ❑ 15 Lakeview Summit ❑ 16 Lakewood ❑ 17 McVey-South Shore ❑ 18 Mountain Park ❑ 19 North Shore Country Club ❑ 20 Oak Creek ❑ 21 Old Town ❑ 22 Palisades ❑ 23 Rosewood (Unincorporated) ❑ 24 Skylands (Unincorporated) ❑ 25 Uplands ❑ 26 Waluga ❑ 27 Westlake ❑ 28 Westridge ❑ 29 Other/Not sure �• RILEY RESEARCH ASSDCIATES 4 Q30. How many children under age 19, if any, currently live in your home? ❑, None ❑s 4 ❑z 1 ❑s 5+ ❑a 2 ❑s (Refused) ❑a3 Q31. (Categorize age) (If refused ask)Which of these cateqories includes your age? ❑, 18-24 ❑s 55-64 ❑z 25-34 ❑s 65-74 ❑a 35-44 ❑� 75+ ❑a 45-54 ❑s (Refused) Q32. Are you or is a member of your immediate family employed by the City of Lake Oswego? ❑, No ❑s Volunteer only ❑z Yes-on payroll Q33. And how would you characterize your gender? ❑i Female ❑e Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming ❑z Male ❑s Different identity(please state): ❑a Trans male/Trans man ❑� ❑a Trans female/Trans woman ❑s (Refused) Q 34. Which of the following best represents your racial or ethnic heritage? Choose all that apply. ❑, Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American ❑s Black,Afro-Caribbean,or African American ❑z Latino or Hispanic American ❑s Middle Eastern or Arab American ❑s East Asian or Asian American ❑� Native American or Alaskan Native ❑a South Asian or Indian American ❑s Other Those are all the questions I have. Thank you for your time and opinions! �• RILEY RESEARCH ASSDCIATES 5 Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Deborah Wilkinson <deborah.wilkinson@premierepropertygroup.com> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 4:56 PM To: Council Distribution; Studebaker, Kent Subject: Proposed Changes to "Draft Community Perception Survey" Mayor; Members of the City Council: From the beginning of the City Council's discussions about the fate of the Lake Oswego Public Golf Course, I have been following with interest and have been advocating on behalf of the future of the golf course. I speak as both a neighbor and as an almost 20 year volunteer of the golf course. I have witnessed first- hand how this course improves the lives of so many, both golfers and non-golfers alike; including my own. I would like to propose the following changes to the "Draft Community Perception Survey" as it relates to the golf course: Q11—Delete "at the municipal�olf course" Residents may support a recreation facility but not necessarily at the golf course. Add Question:Are you in favor of continuin�the�olf course in its current 18-hole format? In all the time we have had discussions on the fate of the golf course we have never asked Lake Oswego residents if they would like to continue with an 18-hole course. Delete Question Q25— Nowhere in questions Q12 to Q23 do you ask the public where the dollars will be coming from to fund programs and improvements except as a follow-up to Q24 regarding sale of a portion of the golf course to reconstruct the course and improve the driving range.To the best of my knowledge the city council has never supported the sale of an active park.The golf course is an active park. It has long been held that "we cannot sell prime park land when we don't know what our future needs will be." To all of you, I appreciate your consideration of my changes. Deborah Wilkinson 17304 Marjorie Ave Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Deborah Wilkinson, GRI, SRES Principal Broker 503-453-3597 www.movin�throu�hyourlife.com Follow Me on Facebook � Find Me on Linkedln �� •�� i Dear Council members, I believe there are improvements the should be made to the proposed Parks and Recreation survey. It seems as though there have been two questions omitted from the group Q12-24. I propose A: Do you support modest upgrades and getting caught up on delayed maintenance to the golf course to the tune of$ . And B: Would you support a big fancy P&R headquarters and complete golf course redesign to the tune of$20 Million? Q25 is not concise. A person could interpret "golf course improvement" as including a proposed new big park and recreation headquarters. The question omits the approximate selling price of the two acres to developers. That omission and lack of clarity is glaringly misleading. Generally I do not support a big new expensive P&R headquarters. But specifically concerning the proposed golf course location my opposition is three fold. I don't want to see any portion of the golf course sold off to developers. If residents decide that they want a big new expensive P&R headquarters I believe that the golf course is unsuitable. McVey/Stafford is a two lane arterial that is already at capacity. I believe that the council members are hoping that a building like this will be useful to the entire community. Yet this proposed location is nowhere near the geographical or population center of Lake Oswego. If we choose to go forward with this project it should be more centrally located in Lake Oswego and on a four lane road. The vacant Walmart building on Boones Ferry is up for lease. Something like this would be perfect. It has ample parking, plenty of office space and enough classroom space without going over the top with gymnasiums, this and that and the other things on the wish list including a POOL. I find it disturbing that we are still discussing the selling of the two acres on the golf course. The sale of the two acres is even given its own special if ambiguous question on the survey. I believed that option was taken off the table at a recent council meeting pertaining to rezoning a portion of the golf course. At the very least the survey should not go out until the new council members have been seated and have an opportunity to express their thoughts. Thank you for your consideration, Shannon Lindsey Simpson, Anne-Marie From: Gale Wallmark <gwallmark@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 12:58 PM To: Studebaker, Kent; Buck, Joe; Gudman, Jeff; Kohlhoff, Theresa; La Motte,John; Manz, Jackie Cc: Council Distribution Subject: Public Comment to the Parks Bond Renewal Survey Dear Mayor and Council Members: I'm a new resident of Lake Oswego (as of Jan 2018) and an avid golfer of moderate skill. Factoring into our decision to purchase our home in the Kilkenny neighborhood, proximity to the Muni golf course was high among the advantages. I play and practice there often and have come to love it. Certainly, I view it as a resource to be valued, nurtured and protected. I'm a volunteer board member of the Portland chapter of the LPGA Amateur Golf Association, and also a volunteer and advocate for the Portland chapter of The First Tee, which uses golf to teach kids the important character-building core values inherent in the game. I've had a long career in marketing/communications, including 30+years of survev research experience. I'm seeking to encourage you to consider the following comments regarding the proposed questionnaire: As currently constructed, the survev is trvin�to answer too manv questions. As such, it's at hi�h risk of producin� misleadin�/unreliable results. Consider two surveys, each with focused information goals:This first one now limited to understanding 1) interest in renewing bonds, 2) support for a 'permanent home for P&R'—various concept descriptions, locations, costs. A second survey sometime next year to help prioritize ALL the proposed P&R projects. My specific change suggestions to this q'aire include the following (most critically those in yellow highlight): ■ Q3-7. Rotate order of all five Qs, not just 3-5. ■ Q9. Correct last sentence: If a P&R bond renewal plan designed to continue at no increase to tax payers was on the ballot,would your likely support or oppose...? ■ In the intro to Qs 11-24, establish/clarify the connection between renewing the bonds and funding the proposed projects. ls bond renewal the anticipated funding source for all these projects? ■ Qs11-24.This is an extremely difficult battery of 14 complex options &costs—especially for a phone survey. Most respondents will be confused—and lose focus. Will interviewers randomize the order of these Qs?If not, responses to last-asked options will be biased by fatigue. ■ Q11. Delete "at the municipal course."The golf course location is a variable.Tying support for the building to just this one location muddies the finding. ■ Q12, 13 &20. Consider combining into one statement: "Make improvements at Luscher Farm including access & parking, expansion of Community Supported Agriculture, renovation of Firlane House and construction of an environmental classroom at a cost of$4.1M." ■ Q24. Change to: "Make repairs and improvements to the existing municipal golf course and practice facilities to promote increased use (and profitability) at a cost of S2.5M." Describing this option as a 9-hole layout and driving range improvement seems limiting and premature.This more neutral description allows respondents to express their opinion about the golf course more generally. ■ Q25. Omit.There are no similar"funding follow-ups"for any of the other project options. ■ Ascertain if/how Riley Research will ensure the ending sample of respondents representatively reflects the City's residential population on key demographics, e.g., geography, HH composition and income. I would be happy to assist Council further collaborate with Riley Research to optimize the q'aire. Thank you for your consideration, Gale Wallmark 1755 Kilkenny Rd Lake Oswego, OR 97034 1 Simpson, Anne-Marie From: MARGARET WILKINSON <m wilk@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 9:42 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Parks Bond Renewal Survey Councilors- On Tuesday, you will be reviewing the Parks Bond Renewal survey, the draft of which was attached to the Council Agenda, I have concerns about 3 of the questions. C�1 �I .The first prapos�d impra�r�ment i� building of a perm�nent h�m� f�r the P�rk� and F��reati�n Deparkm�nt at the muni�ip�l galf course includin� space for c�mmunit�r �I�ss�s and progr�ms, � g�rmnasium �nd commur�ity m��ting �p�c�� p�rti�ll� b�nd fund�� at total ��t of �01�1. H��r�r �nr�uld �ou prioriti�� this pr�ject, on� ta �� This question assumes that a majority of the community wants a Recreation Center. It should be broken into three questions to understand what the community desires. • Creating a new home for Parks & Recreation administration (Priortize this project, 1 to 10) • Building a Recreation Center including space for community classes and programs, a gymnasium and community meeting spaces (Priortize this project, 1 to 10) • Where would you like this to be located? (Open ended) Q2� F�e-c�nstr��ct the exi�ting p�r-�3 ��unici,p��l course into �� -h�le exe�utiv� ��ursa �n�i enl��rg� �nd in�pro�e th� driving range �t � �o�t of �_5 n}illion This has been the single proposal throughout the process, regardless of feedback from the community. There has never been a serious consideration of doing much less; leave the course as currently configured and correct the drainage and irrigation issues. Replace the driving range with simulators that can be used year round. Imagine the programming that could be centered around them. That with some structural changes to the Golf Course management could return the course to break even status. C�2�. As a f�llo�rr-up, �vould �ou rath�r se� the golf �ours� impro��m�nts funded b�r th� bond, �r funded b�r selling � - 7 residential lots from the golf �aurse? ��tr�n�l� �r same�vh�t?� ❑ 1 �trongl�r support use of a bond � � �omewhat support selling lats ❑� ��meumat suppart use of a aond � e �trongl�+ support selling lots ❑� {L�nsure� Depends! Neither�Don't care} � e (Refused) Why is the Golf Course the only project listed that is expected to provide its own funding?Why, in a survey designed to measure support for a Bond Measure, would alternative funding mechanisms be brought up for only one of the projects and not others?As comparison, the Tennis Center has a large reserve, why is the option to pull from reserves vs use of the bond not presented? The way this question is worded, it does not measure support or opposition to selling the off part of the Golf Course. Instead, respondents are asked, would you rather... Survey respondents are not given an option to oppose selling the lots or to oppose the identified upgrades to the Course. I look forward to the discussion on Tuesday. 1 9.3 o�c�'P` � �s� COUNCIL REPORT � � � � V � O pR�GOr� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Megan Phelan, Assistant City Manager Shawn Cross, Finance Director SUBJECT: TRENDS IN FIRE COST OF COMPENSATION DATE: October 29, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 ACTION Information only. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the course of the IAFF collective bargaining agreement that expired in 2017 and the recently-adopted three-year agreement, the rate of increase in total cost of compensation exceeds the inflation rate. By the end of the new agreement, the median cost of pay and benefits for an employee represented by the IAFF agreement is projected to total $211,000 per year. BACKGROUND At its meeting of October 16, the City Council approved the 2017-20 collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, and asked staff to provide information on overall trends in the cost of compensation. For this analysis, we considered the median and top levels of pay and benefits. The median is a driver/engineer who earns approximately $17,500 per year in overtime pay. The top compensation amount corresponds to a lieutenant earning about $45,000 in overtime. Both are at the top step of their respective pay ranges and Tier 1 PERS members. The table below shows the median and top total cost of pay and benefits for the three years of the prior collective bargaining agreement and the actuals for the first year and projections for the second and third years under the new contract. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.cit� Page 2 Fiscal Year Median Top 2014-15 $ 170,517 $ 198,323 2015-16 175,420 212,330 2016-17 176,088 217,762 2017-18 188,148 222,251 2018-19 196,000 231,000 2019-20 211,000 249,000 The chart below shows the median cost of compensation based on the two collective bargaining agreements, and the cost of compensation if it increased at the overall rate of inflation (the "median, indexed" bars). The analysis assumes an inflation rate of 3% in 2019-20. Median Pay $zso,000 S2oo,o00 Siso,000 $ioo,000 Sso,000 So 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 ■Median ■Median,Indexed The chart below is similar, showing compensation trends for the top cost of compensation. Highest Paid $300,000 S2so,000 $zoo,000 $iso,000 Ssoo,000 $50,000 $0 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 ■Top ■Top,Indexed 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 The components of the total cost of compensation are shown in the chart below. Projected Cost of Compensation FY 2019-20 c 300,000.00 0 � 250,000.00 - c � 200,000.00 - 0 v 150,000.00 � 0 � 0 100,000.00 U � 50,000.00 c � Q Median Top ■Other Health ■Retirement ■Overtime ■Regular Pay These trends are not new. Comparing the 1989-90 budget with the 2017-18 budget, firefighter salaries and benefits have both increased at a higher pace than inflation. The top salary steps in 1989-90 range from $31,000 (firefighter) to $34,500 (lieutenant). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the consumer price index (CPI-U) for Portland-Salem increased by a factor of 2.04 from 1990 to 2018. If base salaries had increased with inflation, they would now range from $63,000 to $70,000 per year. Instead, in the 2017-18 budget, they range from $87,700 to $102,000. Benefit costs have increased at a higher rate. In 1990, the cost of benefits amounted to 38% of pay (including overtime); today the average is 62%. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 9.4 o�tiA ��o�,� C�UhJCfL REPnRT � '� � �` '�� n v o QR��D� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: David Powell, City Attorney SUBJECT: Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 Six-lot Subdivision at 1107 Yates Street DATE: November 5, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order in LU 17-0084 DISCUSSION On October 23, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal from the Development Review Commission's decision in LU 17-0084 to approve a six-lot subdivision at 1107 Yates Street, together with removal of 27 trees. The Commission also denied the applicant's request for reduction of a previously-delineated Resource Protection District on the site under LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii. On October 30, 2018, the City Council deliberated and voted to tentatively affirm the decision of the Commission, but to add a condition of approval requiring that, before the final building inspection or occupancy of any dwelling on any lot in the subdivision, the applicant must permanently remove the chain link fence along the perimeter of the open space tract so as to allow unobstructed wildlife passage between that tract and the abutting park property. The attached Findings, Conclusions and Order finalizes this tentative decision. Note that Condition D.4. requires the applicant to remove the chain link fence along the southern and eastern perimeter of the open space tract (the portions that abut Hallinan Woods). It also provides that those segments of the perimeter, and the interior of the open space tract, shall remain permanently unfenced. The condition specifies that it should not be construed as prohibiting fencing along the property lines of Lots 4-6 or around the stormwater facility. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.cit� Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the Findings, Conclusions and Order for LU 18-0084. ATTACHMENT • Findings, Conclusions and Order (LU 18-0084) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 SIX LOT SUBDIVISION, REDUCTION OF RP LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 DISTRICT BUFFER AND THE REMOVAL OF 27 RAGHUNANDAN AND SANGEETA KAMINENI 4 TREES 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 6 7 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS g This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on an appeal by Donald 9 Mattersdorff and Christian Huettemeyer ("Appellants")from the Development Review 10 Commission ("Commission") Order dated September 24, 2018, approving the following, subject 11 to conditions of approval: 12 1. A 6-lot Subdivision with a private street. Five of the lots will be flag lots (Lots 2-6); 13 2. Removal of 27 trees to accommodate the project. 14 and denying the following: 15 16 3. RP District Reduction of the previously delineated RP District, per LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii. 1� The site is located at 1107 Yates Street (21E10DD01300). 18 19 HEARINGS 20 The Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meetings of 21 September 5, 2018 and September 17, 2018. Following the filing of the appeal by the Appellants, the City Council held public hearings to consider the appeal on October 23 and 22 October 30, 2018. 23 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 24 LOC 50.03.002.2 Residential Low Density Zones- Uses 25 LOC 50.04.001.1 Dimensional Standards for Low Density Residential Zones LOC 50.05.010; 50.07.004.8 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 26 PAGE 1 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 LOC 50.06.002 Parking LOC 50.06.003.1 Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots) 2 LOC 50.06.003.2 On-site Circulation-Driveways and Fire Access Roads LOC 50.06.003.4; 50.07.004.5 Street Connectivity 3 LOC 50.06.003.5 Transit LOC 50.06.004.1 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 4 LOC 50.06.004.2 Fences LOC 50.06.004.3 Lighting 5 LOC 50.06.005; 50.07.004.7 Park and Open Space Contributions LOC 50.06.006.1 Weak Foundation Soils 6 LOC 50.06.006.2; 50.07.004.3 Hillside Protection LOC 50.06.006.3 Stormwater Management Standards � LOC 50.06.007; 50.07.004.9 Solar Access LOC 50.06.008; 50.07.004.11 Utility Standard g LOC 50.07.003.1 Application Procedures LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development 9 LOC 50.07.003.6 Effect of Decision LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 10 LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions LOC 50.07.007.2 Flag Lots 11 LOC 38.25 Stormwater Management Code LOC 42.03.130 Sight Distance at Roadway Intersections, Private 12 Streets and Driveways LOC 42.08.400-42.08.470 Streets and Sidewalks 13 LOC 55.02.010 - 55.02.084 Tree Removal and Mitigation 14 FINDINGS AND REASONS 15 As support for its decision, the City Council incorporates the August 10, 2018, Staff 16 Report, with all exhibits, the October 12, 2018 Council Report, with all exhibits, and the Findings 17 and Conclusions of the Commission, supplemented by the further findings and conclusions 18 below. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplemental findings and the 19 incorporated matter, the supplemental findings control. 20 The following are the supplemental findings and conclusions of the City Council: 21 Stormwater 22 The Intent to Appeal, Exhibit A-001, stated that the application did not meet the 23 Stormwater Management Standards, LOC 50.60.006.3, and Stormwater Management Code, 24 LOC Ch. 38.25, however, at the October 23, 2018 appeal hearing, the Appellants withdrew this 25 aspect of appeal and the issue was not raised by other persons at the appeal hearing. 26 PAGE 2 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 Fla� Lots 2 3 The Appellants assert that the proposed flag lots do not meet the "behind another lot" 4 element of the flag lot definition (see below) because Lots 2-6 are not behind: 5 a. "[T]he so-called 'parent lot"' (Exhibit A-001); 6 b. Lot 1 (Appellants' testimony); or 7 c. Any lots on Yates St. (Appellants' testimony). 8 The Commission approved the subdivision application with Lots 2-6 being designated as 9 flag lots. The Commission incorporated the Staff Report (Exhibit D-1) as support for its decision; 10 however, the Commission made no supplemental findings on whether or not the proposed lots 11 are flag lots (Commission Minutes, Sept. 24, 2018). 12 The Access Standard, LOC 50.06.003.1, requires that all lots, except flag lots, shall abut a 13 public street for a width of at least 25 feet. Lots 2-6 do not have the required frontage on Yates 14 Street. Thus, in order for the proposed subdivision to be approved, each of the proposed Lots 15 2-6 must qualify as a "flag lot." 16 "Flag Lot" is defined in LOC 50.10.003.2:1 17 "A lot that: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and 18 b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to 19 less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement." 20 21 It is not disputed that Lots 2-6 would take access from an access easement. Exhibit E- 22 004; Appellants'Testimony. The question presented in this appeal is whether subsection (a) of 23 the Flag Lot definition is met: whether the actual building sites of Lots 2-6 are located "behind 24 another lot." 25 26 1 The application was filed prior to April 5,2018,the effective date of amendments to the flag lot standards under Ordinance 2762. Therefore the Flag Lot standards that were in effect prior to that date apply to this project. ORS 227.178(3)(a). PAGE 3 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 "Behind Another Lot" 2 The Appellants argue that Lots 2-6 are in front of, not behind the "parent lot"/ Lot 1. 3 The Council interprets the Appellants' use of the term "parent lot" to mean Lot 1 of the 4 proposed subdivision because the Appellants refer to the subdivision proposal and state that 5 Lots 2-6 are "in front of'parent lot,' in front of Lot 1...." Appellants' Testimony. The Appellants 6 use the term "parent lot" and "Lot 1" interchangeably. The Council notes that the "parent lot" 7 is the existing parcel proposed to be subdivided. "Parent lot" has been incorrectly used in the 8 past to refer to a non-flag lot that is created from a land division where the other lots created 9 by the land division are flag lots. See former LOC 50.07.007.2.c.i (2017)(flag lot access must be 10 consolidated into a shared access land with access to the "parent parcel" or off-site). 11 The Appellants assert that "behind another lot" must mean a lot created as part of the 12 land division because any lot is behind some lot elsewhere in the city, and that would make all 13 lots flag lots. The Council finds that the flag lot definition in LOC 50.10.003.2 does not require 14 that the actual building site of the flag lot be behind a non-flag lot created by the proposed land 15 division; the flag lot definition states that the actual building site of the flag lot must be behind 16 "another lot," which could be either another lot to be created by the land division or another 17 lot existing outside of the subject parcel. 18 The interpretation of "another lot" does not mean, as the Appellants argue, that all 19 potential flag lotsZ in the city could qualify as flag lots because they are behind another lot 20 located somewhere else in the city. Interpreting the "behind another lot" element in 21 subsection (a) necessarily includes a determination of the position or standpoint from where 22 the actual building site of the proposed flag lot is to be viewed. Subsection (b) of the Flag Lot 23 definition requires access from the street via a driveway or access easement. Based upon the 24 context of the access and frontage standards, the Council finds that the place from which it is to 25 be determined if the actual building site is behind another lot is the public street. This is 26 Z A lot that has 25 ft.frontage on a public street is not a flag lot. LOC 50.06.003.1 PAGE 4 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 consistent with the Council's previous interpretation of the "behind" element of the Flag Lot 2 definition in LU 14-0046. Exhibit C-003, pg. 2. The Council reaffirms the interpretation that the 3 standpoint from which the determination is to be made of whether an actual building site is 4 behind another lot is the public street— in this case the terminus of Yates Street, where it abuts 5 the subject site. Thus, the question is not simply whether the proposed flag lots are behind or 6 in front of Lot 1; the question is whether the actual building site of Lots 2-6 are behind another 7 lot as viewed from Yates Street. 8 Lots4-6: 9 The Appellants argue that Lots 4-6 are beside lots on Yates Street and therefore not 10 "behind another lot." Most lots are beside (abut) another lot. As discussed above, the 11 question is whether "the [proposed flag lot's] actual building site [is] located behind another 12 lot" as viewed from Yates Street. The Council finds, for the reasons stated above, Lots 4-6, and 13 thus their respective actual building sites, are behind Lot 2 because Lot 2 is between Yates 14 Street and Lots 4-6, and thus, viewed from Yates Street, Lots 4-6 are behind Lot 2. Exhibit E-004 15 Council Report, p. 4. 16 Lot 3: 17 Lot 3 is in the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision. Appellants argue that Lot 18 3 is beside Tax Lot 5901 and therefore isn't behind it. The Council finds for the reasons stated 19 above that, as viewed from Yates Street, Lot 2 and Tax Lot 5901 are between Yates Street and 20 Lot 3, and therefore Lot 3, and its actual building site, is "behind another lot." Exhibit E-004; 21 Council Report, p. 4. 22 Lot 2: 23 Again, the Appellants argue Lot 2 is beside Tax Lot 5901 and therefore Lot 2 is not 24 "behind another lot." Also, a portion of Lot 2 abuts Yates Street. The question under the flag 25 lot definition is whether the "actual building site" of Lot 2 is "behind another lot" as viewed 26 from the public street, Yates Street, not whether a portion of Lot 2 abuts either Yates Street or Tax Lot 5901. To view the actual building site of Lot 2 from Yates Street one must look across a PAGE 5 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 portion of Tax Lot 5901, as shown in the Council Report. Thus, in relation to Yates Street, the 2 actual building site of Lot 2 is behind a portion of Tax Lot 5901. Exhibit E-009; Council Report, p. 3 4. 4 The Council finds that Lots 2-6 each meet the definition of "flag lot" under LOC 5 50.10.003.2 6 Fence Abuttin� Park 7 As evidenced in the Commission minutes of September 5 and 17, 2018, development 8 of the subdivision would impede existing wildlife travel patterns from the abutting park up and 9 through the site to the area north of the site. Although an existing chain link fence surrounds 10 the site, there is evidence that wildlife is found on the site (Exhibits C-002, pg. 12; C-005, pg. 4; 11 G-225, G-227), indicating some wildlife presently find a way over or under the existing fence. 12 However, the existing fence presents some degree of barrier to wildlife migration through the 13 Open Space Tract. 14 New fences are required to be constructed along the side and rear of the flag lots. 15 These new fences, and the residential development that will occur on the lots, will substantially 16 impede and alter the existing wildlife travel pattern because there will be both a physical 17 barrier and human activities. The Council finds that removal of the existing chain link fence 18 along the southern and eastern perimeter of the open space tract (the segments that abut the 19 Parks and Natural Area property) would mitigate the negative impacts of the development, 20 including the new fences along the side and rear of the flag lots and around the stormwater 21 facility tract, because wildlife will be able to pass without difficulty through the RP District up 22 and to the northeast of the development, within Hallinan Woods Park. 23 The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval that are reasonably 24 related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes caused 25 by the development. LOC 50.07.003.5.a.iv. Therefore, the Council adds Condition D(4), below, 26 to require removal of the existing fence along the southern and eastern perimeter of the proposed Open Space Tract, (and to prohibit construction of a fence in the future in those PAGE 6 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 segments of the perimeter or in the interior of the open space) in order to facilitate the free 2 movement of wildlife through the RP District's protected resource area. (Condition D.4 shall be 3 interpreted to permit fencing along the rear and side property lines of Lots 4-6, and around the 4 stormwater tract, as required or beneficial for the operation of the stormwater facility.) Upon 5 Council inquiry at the appeal hearing, the Applicant affirmatively stated no objection to 6 Condition D(4). 7 The Council adopts the findings in the Staff Report, Exhibit D-1, and the October 12, 8 2018 Council Report, as supplemented by the above findings, finding that all criteria and 9 standards are met or can be met with the imposition of conditions of approval, and imposes the 10 conditions of approval recommended by the Commission, with the additional condition 11 outlined above as Condition D(4). 12 CONCWSION 13 The City Council concludes that LU 17-0084 (except for the proposed RP District 14 reduction), with conditions of approval, complies with all applicable criteria and should be 15 approved. 16 ORDER 17 The Lake Oswego City Council orders that LU 17-0084 is approved (but with denial of the 18 reduction of the RP District), subject to compliance with the following conditions of approval: 19 Conditions 20 A. Prior to Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat, the Applicants/Owners Shall: 21 1. Apply for and obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on site. The 22 applicants should note that this may require an asbestos report from a licensed agency to the 23 satisfaction of the Building Official and that a 14-day notice of demolition is required to be 24 posted on the site and mailed to abutting properties pursuant to LOC 45.12.100. The 25 demolition permit shall be accompanied by proper applications for tree protection and erosion 26 control permits, if needed. PAGE 7 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 2. Provide proof that all structures have been removed per Condition A(1), above. 2 3. Submit a final plat to City staff for review and signature of approval within one 3 year of the date of this decision.* The final plat must be dimensioned as depicted in Exhibit E-4 4 and reference this land use application —City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services 5 Department, Case File LU 17-0084, except that Lots 4-6 shall be modified so that the delineated 6 RP District boundary as shown in Exhibit E-014 is not within the Lots and stormwater tract. 7 Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year period, the City Manager shall, in 8 writing, grant a one-year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and 9 must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current 10 law, development standards and compatibility with development that may have occurred in the 11 surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned 12 to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and 13 compatibility with surrounding development. Failure to submit the final plat by the deadline or 14 to obtain an extension voids the subdivision approval. 15 Per LOC 50.07.007.3.b, if after timely receiving a final plat for review staff 16 determines that it does not conform to the land use approval, the applicant shall be advised by 17 a written notice which shall list the reasons for the decision.The applicant shall then have 30 18 calendar days to correct the plat or to schedule a review of the final plat by the Development 19 Review Commission. 20 Per LOC 50.07.007.3.b, within 30 calendar days of approval and signature by the 21 City, the final plat shall be recorded with the appropriate county. Failure to record the plat 22 within this timeframe voids the subdivision approval. 23 *Note: LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i is currently proposed for amendment. The final plat 24 must be submitted and/or recorded as required by the then applicable provisions of LOC 25 50.07.007.3.a.i. 26 The final plat shall include the following information: PAGE 8 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 a. Public utility easements, to the satisfaction of the franchise utility 2 companies. 3 b. Private storm easements for the development's common storm 4 facilities. 5 c. Public vehicular and pedestrian access easement over the entire 6 access lane serving the development. 7 d. Public access easement over the pathway that will connect the 8 access lane to the existing pathway in the park to the east. 9 e. Minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement over the 10 new sanitary sewer main extension. 11 f. Minimum 15-foot wide public water easement over the new 12 water main through the development site. 13 4. Submit CC&Rs of the homeowners association for review and approval of City 14 staff prior to recordation, that address the following: 15 a. An operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities 16 in the open space tract, outlining the homeowners' responsibility to control non-native 17 vegetation and maintain the facilities. The maintenance plan shall include the stormwater pipes 18 and catch basins for managing the stormwater runoff from the street serving the development. 19 Specific maintenance schedules and methods shall be adopted and implemented subject to 20 approval by the City Engineer. 21 5. Submit a maintenance agreement for the shared access lane and the associated 22 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the lane, as well as the stormwater facility in Tract 23 A, for review and approval of staff. Upon approval, record the maintenance agreement with the 24 Notice of Development Restriction in Condition A(8), below. 25 6. Submit a final fence/ landscape plan showing the 5-foot landscape buffer on 26 either side of the access lane, with a mixture of trees and shrubs, taking into account sight PAGE 9 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 distance at the hammerhead, and a 6-foot tall fence along the rear lot lines of Lots 2-6 and on 2 the side lots lines between Lots 2 and 3; and 4 and 5, and 5 and 6, and a 6-foot landscape 3 screen along the rear property lines of Lots 2-6. 4 7. Show compliance on Lots 4-6 with one of the options for meeting the Solar 5 Access standard or provide documentation that shows that an exemption or adjustment to this 6 standard can be approved. 7 8. Submit a Notice of Development Restrictions to be recorded with the final plat, 8 per review and approval by staff(a template can be provided by staff upon request). A reduced 9 copy of the landscape plan illustrating the 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the 10 shared access lane shall be included with the Notice and labeled as "Exhibit A". A reduced copy 11 of the surveyed RP District with dimensions called out and labeled as "Exhibit B" shall be 12 included. The exhibits shall be no larger than 8 %" x 11" in size and cannot contain any lettering 13 smaller than 10 point font. The Notice shall include the following: 14 a. A minimum 5-foot landscape buffer is required along both sides of the shared 15 access lane, except where the vehicular and pedestrian access is taken. Maintenance of the 16 landscape buffer, the stormwater facility in Tract A, and buffer plantings in the RP District is the 17 ongoing obligation of the property owner(s) of all Lots. See attached Exhibit "A". 18 b. Lots 2-6 are flag lots. Development of structures on these parcels shall comply 19 with the provisions of LOC 50.07.007.2.e regarding building and site design standards, including 20 height limitations, garage placement, and landscape buffer requirements. The following site 21 development restrictions apply: 22 i. The maximum height of future structures on Lots 2-6 shall be 22.6 feet 23 (regardless if, at the time of building permit review, the footprint meets the definition of 24 "Sloped Footprint" per LOC 50.10.003), measured from the ground to the ridgeline of the roof 25 as defined by LOC 50.10.003, "Height of Building." A greater height than otherwise permitted 26 for roof forms or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers, may be allowed pursuant PAGE 10 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 to LOC 50.04.001.1.g.ii. 2 ii. The front yards and front of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 shall be oriented 3 to the south property lines and the front yards and front of dwellings on Lots 4-6 shall be 4 oriented towards the north property lines. The front setbacks shall be measured from the edge 5 of the shared access lane (or projection thereof) along the front yards of Lots 2-6. 6 iii. The minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks for future structures 7 on Lots 2-6 shall be as follows: g Setbacks for Lots 2-6 9 All Lots-Front setback Sum of Side and Rear Setbacks: 45' minimum measured from edge 10 of access lane: 11 10 ft. --Structure Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 12 20 ft.--Garage, Carport 13 opening Sides 15' (W) 15' (W) 10' (W) 10' (W) 10' (W) 14 15 15' (E) 15' (E) 15' (E) 10' (E) 10' (E) 16 Rear 15' (N) 15' (N) 20' (S) 25' (S) 25' (S) 17 18 19 c. The property contains a delineated Resource Protection (RP) District as 20 described in Exhibit "6", and as determined and documented in City of Lake Oswego Planning 21 and Building Services Case File LU 16-0043, Exhibit E-014. Future development is subject to the 22 City of Lake Oswego RP District Development Standards set forth in LOC 50.05.010, including 23 but not limited to: 24 i. Tree removal within the RP District is subject to tree removal 25 permit requirements of LOC Chapter 55 and the provisions of LOC 50.05.010. 26 ii. Manual removal of invasive or nuisance plant material (such as PAGE 11 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, poison oak, and bamboo) within the RP District may be 2 allowed, so long as native understory plants are maintained. 3 iii. The RP District is intended to remain in its natural state to 4 maintain the natural function and character of the resource area, which provides food 5 and shelter for native wildlife. 6 CONTACT THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRIOR 7 TO COMMENCING ANY ACTIVITY INSIDE THE RP DISTRICT. 8 d. Mitigation trees on Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the west side of the stormwater 9 facility as shown on Exhibit E-7, may not be removed unless dead or hazardous because they 10 are mitigation trees for tree removal permitted for the approved development. 11 [This condition may be eliminated if the tree mitigation is moved to a location 12 outside of the lots and stormwater tract]. 13 9. Submit engineered construction drawings for the public improvements for 14 review and approval by the City Engineer. Drawings shall conform to the City's most current 15 design standards and drafting specifications. All final engineering design drawings and as-built 16 plans submitted for the creation of public facilities (street, wastewater, water and surface 17 water) shall be vertically controlled by the City Datum (NGVD'29) and horizontally controlled by 18 the Oregon State Plane coordinate system (NAD 83/91). [Note: receiving construction plan 19 approval is not a pre-requisite for recording the final plat.] The plans shall include the 20 following: 21 a. Design of a new 8-inch public sewer extension into the subdivision within 22 the street in a minimum 15-foot wide public sanitary sewer easement. The mainline extension 23 shall terminate with a manhole, and service laterals shall be constructed perpendicular to the 24 main and shall not be connected directly to a manhole. In addition, the existing 6-inch mainline 25 immediately downstream from the site (70-foot run) within Yates Street shall be replaced 26 and upgraded to an 8-inch diameter main. PAGE 12 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 b. Design of a new 6-inch public water main extension through the site 2 within the street serving the development and loop the existing 4-inch water main at the end of 3 Yates Street to the existing 4-inch water main located at the end of O'Brien Street. The new 4 water main shall be located within a minimum 15-foot wide public water easement and also 5 have a minimum of 10-foot horizontal separation to the new sanitary sewer main. 6 c. Design of the access lane to public street standards (structurally) serving 7 the development as generally shown on the preliminary street plan. The design shall also 8 include stormwater management for the access lane. 9 d. Design of a new asphalt pathway to connect the end of the access lane 10 within the development to the existing pathway on the abutting park to the east that extends 11 down from the end of Obrien Street. 12 e. Design of the new street intersection for the hammerhead turn-around in 13 compliance with AASHTO and the City's vision clearance standards. 14 f. Design of the individual private water services, sanitary service laterals 15 and storm laterals for each individual lot. 16 g. Final construction plan showing the AASHTO clear sight triangles for the 17 street hammerhead intersection. 18 10. Following staff approval of the form, execute and record a waiver of 19 remonstrance regarding the formation of local improvement district or an underground district, 20 for the undergrounding of frontage utilities that includes Yates Street from Laurel Street to the 21 site. [Note: The City Manager or the Planning Commission and City Council may be reviewing 22 LOC 50.06.008.4.d, Utilities, in the future as to its applicability for projects in certain areas or 23 along certain streets. If the applicability of this section is modified such that it would not be 24 required for a project of this type or in this location prior to the recordation of the waiver of 25 remonstrance, this condition for execution and recordation of the waiver of remonstrance shall 26 be released by staff.] PAGE 13 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 11. Construct the public improvements required by Condition A(9), above, or submit 2 a financial guarantee to ensure its construction per LOC 50.07.003.9. The financial guarantee 3 shall be based on 120% of an itemized engineer's estimate that is in turn based on final 4 construction plans that are far enough advanced to support the estimates, to the satisfaction of 5 the City Engineer. 6 B. Within 90 Days of the Recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat,the 7 Applicants/Owners Shall: 8 1. Submit a final title report, or lot book report from a title company demonstrating 9 that the plat was validly recorded and that the public and private easements, CC&Rs, Notice of 10 Development Restriction, LID, and the maintenance agreement, as required by conditions, 11 above, are valid and subsisting, and that the lots are either free and clear of liens or 12 encumbrances, or that the holders of the liens and encumbrances consent to the creation and 13 recordation of the easements and Notice of Development Restriction. 14 C. Prior to the Issuance of any Gradin�or Buildin� Permit on any Lot, the 15 Applicants/Owners Shall: 16 1. Complete all public improvements as required by Condition A(9) above, submit 17 certified "as-built" drawings, and receive a certificate of completion and acceptance by the City. 18 2. Submit a final storm drainage report drainage report, prepared by a registered 19 engineer, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Code and LOSWMM, to the 20 satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final design report must: 21 a. Demonstrate that the final design plans for stormwater management 22 facilities that are a part of the final storm drainage report meet the minimum geometry and 23 configuration requirements in LOSWMM, Section 4.6. 24 b. Include facility sizing and flow routing calculations to show post- 25 developed peak flow rates matching pre-development levels for the 2-year, 5-year, and 10- 26 year, 24-hour runoff events. If the calculated orifice size for a given facility is less than the City's PAGE 14 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 minimum allowable construction standard of 1.0 inch, the required orifice size should be 2 provided in the calculations but may be increased to 1.0 inch in the design drawings. 3 c. Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an erosion prevention and 4 sediment control permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego and a DEQ Construction 5 Stormwater Permit (NPDES 1200-C Permit), and install and maintain all erosion control BMPs as 6 indicated in the permits. 7 3. Submit a copy of the Geotechnical Report and adhere to the recommendations. 8 4. Complete construction of the access lane serving the development and 9 pedestrian connection to the existing pathway in the park, and provide certification from a 10 registered engineer that the private access lane was constructed in accordance with the Fire 11 Code. 12 5. Submit a final landscape and mitigation plan for the mitigation planting in the RP 13 District for the utility approved in the RP District.The final mitigation plan shall include a note 14 that all burlap and wire cages shall be removed before trees are planted. Submit a maintenance 15 and monitoring plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation area for three consecutive years. 16 During the 3-year monitoring period, shrubs and groundcovers shall be replaced as needed to 17 ensure an 80% survival rate, and invasive plants shall be removed as needed to ensure no more 18 than 10% cover. 19 6. Submit final design plans for stormwater conveyance systems and stormwater 20 management facilities. The final stormwater facility design shall meet the minimum geometry, 21 configuration, planting, and setback requirements in LOSWMM, Section 4.6.12. 22 7. Apply for a Verification tree removal permit for the 27 trees approved in Exhibit 23 E-8, and submit a mitigation plan showing 28 mitigation trees. Apply for any additional Type II 24 tree removal permits for trees adjacent to the stormwater Tract and for the water line loop on 25 the park property and any necessary Type II tree removal permits on each parcel for the 26 construction of future dwellings and submit mitigation plans. Apply for and obtain any PAGE 15 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 necessary tree removal permits on each parcel for the construction of future dwellings and 2 submit mitigation plans in accordance with LOC 55.02.084. Mitigation for the first dwelling on 3 the flag lots shall be with a species that will attain a minimum of 30 ft. in height; deciduous 4 trees shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight ft. 5 tall. 6 8. Install all tree protection fencing as required by Code Requirement No. 1, below. 7 All protection fencing shall be inspected and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any 8 grading or building permits. 9 9. For Lots 2-6, the Building Official may allow an alternative to the minimum 10 requirements of the One-and Two-Family Dwelling Specialty Code as authorized by ORS 11 455.610, which may include, but is not limited to, installation of an automatic fire sprinkler 12 system, because the City of Lake Oswego has determined the fire apparatus means of approach 13 to Lots 2-6 may not meet the local City standards adopted in accordance with the applicable 14 Fire Code and state building code requirements. The owner's or owner's representative shall 15 offer an approved alternate method for fire suppression, such as an NFPA 13-D residential fire 16 sprinkler system, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Building Official. 17 D. Prior to the Final Buildin� Inspection or Occupancy of any Dwellin�on Any Lot, the 18 Applicants/Owners Shall: 19 1. Provide certification from the engineer of record that the stormwater facilities 20 serving the development were constructed according to the design and are functioning 21 properly. 22 2. Provide proof of recorded operations and maintenance plans (OMPs) for each 23 stormwater facility. The OMP must describe how to properly maintain the facilities, the 24 frequency of maintenance required and the party responsible for maintaining the facilities. In 25 addition, submit for Engineering staff review and approval (and then record) an Operations and 26 Maintenance plan for the stormwater facility to be maintained by the Homeowner's PAGE 16 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 Association (HOA). 2 3. Install all flag lot landscaping and RP District mitigation planting, and the 6-foot 3 fence in the rear and side yards of Lots 2-6 as required by LOC 50.07.007.2.f.iii and Conditions 4 A(6) and C(5), above. All landscape materials (except the RP District mitigation plantings, which 5 have a longer monitoring period) must be guaranteed by the owner for a period of one 12- 6 month growing season from the date of installation. A security in the amount of 5% of the total 7 landscaping cost shall be provided to ensure necessary replacement. 8 4. Remove the chain link fence along the southern and eastern perimeter of the 9 open space tract. These segments of the perimeter of the open space tract, as well as the 10 interior of the open space tract, shall remain permanently unfenced. This condition shall not be 11 construed as prohibiting fencing along the property lines of Lots 4-6 or around the stormwater 12 facility. 13 E. Miscellaneous: 14 1. The property owner(s) of Lots 1-6 shall maintain the RP District mitigation in 15 accordance with the approved maintenance and monitoring plan required by Condition C(5), 16 above as shown in the final landscape plan and shall provide an annual report to the Planning 17 and Building Services Department by October 31st of each year for a 3-year period, 18 commencing on the 31st of October following the date of issuance of the Final Building 19 Inspection. The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site 20 conditions with a narrative and pictures. 21 Code Requirements: 22 1. Erosion Control: Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an approved erosion 23 prevention and sediment control permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego, and install 24 and maintain all erosion control BMPs as indicated in the permit. 25 2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application prepared by a 26 certified arborist as required by LOC 50.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: PAGE 17 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 1 a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a 2 minimum 6-foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts, around the tree protection zone, 3 or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. 4 b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical 5 root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be 6 taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or 7 compaction. Such measures shall be clearly outlined in the tree protection plan. The note shall 8 also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction 9 activities within the tree protection zone. 10 c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of 11 preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and 12 contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or 13 destroyed during construction. 14 d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing, which states 15 that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval 16 has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. 17 AYES: 18 NOES: 19 ABSENT: 20 ABSTAIN: 21 EXCUSED: 22 23 DATED this 6t" day of November, 2018. 24 Kent Studebaker, Mayor 25 ATTEST: 26 Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder PAGE 18 OF 18— FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER - LU 17-0084/AP 18-08 10.1 o�c�'A � �s� COUNCIL REPORT � � �, � � V � O �REGO� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Erica Rooney, PE, City Engineer David Kudna, Project Manager Engineering Department SUBJECT: Award of a Public Improvement Contract for Construction of WO 246—Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvement Project DATE: October 23 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to award a public improvement contract to Pacific Excavation in the amount of $2,480,000.00 for Work Order 246—Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvements Project. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Originally, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identified the Country Club Road (Knaus to 10tn) Pavement Project beginning in FY 2017-18. As staff began scoping for this project additional information became available regarding infrastructure in Country Club Road. It was discovered that all utilities from 10t" Street at Chandler to Six Corners (Iron Mountain Blvd) needed to be replaced or upgraded prior to repaving. After carefully considering budget and neighborhood impacts it was determined that Country Club Road from 10t" Street to Six Corners would be a standalone project. The pavement section of County Club from Knaus to Six Corners is much better than the rest, and can be separated into a future rehabilitation project. By combining all the utility improvements into a single project from 10t" to Six Corners it will save money and time by avoiding multiple construction projects in the same corridor. This adheres to one of the City Council's goals to "dig once" when doing corridor projects, minimizing overall impacts to drivers and residents. The project will not alter the existing traffic patterns, nor will sidewalks be added. The wastewater system in this section of Country Club Road is beyond repair and needs to be replaced. This project is realigning the wastewater main to be located in Country Club Road 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 right-of-way, removing it from side and back yards. Realignment will insure accessibility and reliable operation in the future. Fire protection is substandard in this section of Country Club Road and fire hydrants are required to bring it up to current Fire Code. To accommodate additional fire hydrants the existing water main will be upsized to increase capacity. The storm water system in this section of Country Club Road is over 70 years old. The project will take this opportunity to rehabilitate and extend the existing storm water system to address deficiencies. DISCUSSION In October, 2018 the City opened bids for the Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvement Project—Work Order 246. Five bids were received as noted below: Bidding Contractor Amount Pacific Excavation $2,480,000.00 Kerr Contractors $2,895,942.00 Goodfellows Bros LLC $3,049,891.60 Moore Excavation $3,067,177.00 Emery and Sons $3,137,893.25 Engineer's Estimate $3,300,000.00 The low bid submitted by Pacific Excavation has been determined to be responsive and responsible. ALTERNATIVES The construction bid for this project is $2,480,000.00. The funding for this project is provided by the City's Storm Water, Waste Water (Sewer), Street, and Water Funds, as noted earlier. There are three alternatives: 1) Reject the bid and choose not to construct the project as planned and designed. Any future attempts to modify or reduce the project scope will result in increased costs for redesign. 2) Reject the bid and re-advertise the project. This will cause significant delays and likely will not result in either more bids or lower prices. The overall project costs will go up because of delay. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 3) Award the contract as recommended because this bid amount corresponds to the engineer's estimate. Staff recommends accepting the bid by Pacific Excavation for the following reasons: • This project aligns with Council's goal to continue to improve the condition of City streets and supports the "dig once" philosophy. • Left unattended, the underground utilities and the roadway will continue to degrade and it is more cost efficient to rehabilitate them now rather than to wait until they fail completely. The bid documents for this project were prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for public improvement contracts and the bidding process was conducted in accordance with the City's public contracting procedures. Schedule: If awarded, construction would begin in January, with the intent to finish the project by July 2019. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council move to award a public improvement contract to Pacific Excavation in the amount of$2,480,000.00 for the construction of WO 246—Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvement Project. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 10.2 a�tiA .�as CnUNCIL REP�RT � , �,1 �� n V ❑ °REGar� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Dale Jorgensen, Police Chief Darryl Wrisley, Lieutenant SUBJECT: Resolution 18-41, Authorizing a First Lease Modification Agreement and Tenant's Exercise of Option to Renew Police Training and Evidence Storage Space DATE: October 18, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 ACTION Adopt Resolution 18-41, authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Lease Modification Agreement between the City of Lake Oswego and Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. for the property located at 7236 SW Durham Road, Building N, Suite 600, Portland, Oregon. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Police Department maintained a separate evidence storage facility for a number of years and it was located on the grounds of the former Operations Center. When the new Maintenance Center was built, the evidence storage facility had to move. At about the same time the Police Department vacated a portion of the West End Building that had been used for Police training when the building was sold. On January 1, 2016 the City of Lake Oswego entered into a three year lease agreement (with two 2-year options to renew) with the Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. to lease an approximately 5001 square foot warehouse space for evidence storage and training; see Resolution 15-46, attached. Interior improvements were made to the warehouse: A monitored entry alarm, a secure separation interior room for evidence, small office space, upgraded windows for better security, and a training area space inside. The cost of the interior improvements was approximately$29,000. This lease was initially meant to be a temporary use until a new Police Department facility with space for evidence storage and training facilities was built. However, due to budgetary restraints, the City Hall plans have been modified to eliminate the evidence storage and 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 suitable training. Accordingly, the Police Department will have a long-term need for leased evidence storage and training facilities. Because of the cost of the interior improvements already made to the current leased facility, which would have to be made again at a new location, alternative sites have not been considered. Staff inet with the landlord of the existing storage facility to discuss a revision to the option to renew terms, to establish the rental amount for a five year period, rather than for two two-year periods. Per these negotiations, the monthly base rent would increase 3% a year. In addition, the tenant (City) is responsible for "Additional Rent," which is defined in the lease as the proportional share of the warehouse site's real property taxes (2.78%)* and Operating Expenses (insurance, utilities not paid directly by tenant**, property management, maintenance of common areas)(20% of the Building). Notes: *2.78% is the total space of the five buildings on the property. The Lease Amendment includes a tax exemption provision per ORS 307.112, which if approved by the Washington County Assessor, would eliminate the real property taxes from the Additional Rent. Staff estimates the Additional Rent is expected to remain relatively constant at $1,539.00 per month, subject to some reduction if the tax exemption is approved. **Average utility costs directly paid by City for the last year were approximately $401.00 per month, e.g., gas, electric. The City also pays for HVAC maintenance fees. The Table below shows the anticipated monthly and annual costs over the term of the 5 year lease. Perion of Time Monthly Monthly Est. Monthly Annual Base Rent Taxes*and Total Rent Total Rent Operating Expenses February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 $3,351.00 $1,539.00 $4,890.00 $58,680.00 February 1, 2020 through January 31, 2021 $3,451.00 $1,539.00 $4,990.00 $59,880.00 February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022 $3,555.00 $1,539.00 $5,094.00 $61,128.00 February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023 $3,662.00 $1,539.00 $5,201.00 $62,412.00 February 1, 2023 through January 31, 2024 $3,771.00 $1,539.00 $5,310.00 $63,720.00 * See discussion above. FISCAL IMPACT Over a five year period the annual average is $61,164.00, with those funds to be from the Police Department budget. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 18-41. ATTACH M ENTS 1. Resolution 15-46 2. Resolution 18-41 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 RE50LlJTION 15-46 A RE50LUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A L�ASE FOR A POLICE TRAIIVING AND EVIDENCE STORAG� FACILITY WHEREAS the current E�idence Storage Facility rr�ust be relocated due to the pending renovation of the City's Public Warks Operations Center; and WHEREAS the recent sale af the West End Building i�as eliminated space formerly used for a police training area, classroom and training equ�pment storage; and WHEREAS it is necessary to lease property for police training and e�idence storage pending the anticipated expansion of police facilities o�to the lot adjacent to City Hall; IT IS RESOLVED by the Lake 05wego City Council that: Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to sign th� lease with Pacific Realty Associafies, L.P., substantially in the form attached a5 Exhibit 1, for police trair�ing and Evidence storage faci�ities, Section 2. This Resolution shall be effective irr�mediately upon its adoption by the City Cauncil. Adopted at the meetir�g of the Lake Oswega City Council he�d on the 15t day of September, 2015. AYES: Mayar 5tudebaker, 0'Neill, Gustafson, Manz, Buck, Gudman, NO�S: None. �XCUS�D: Nane. ABSTAIN: None. s �.�1� "� � f.� '� � ! Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: f;�.'�"L VL�� Y LGL•�,(C ��,v�-t��:�.� Anne-Marie 5irr�pson, City Recarder APP ��UED AS T � OR : David Pawell City Attorney PACTRUST BUSINESS CENTER LEASE BY AND BETWEEN PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. a Delaware limited partnership AND THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO a municipal corparation of the State of Oregon Table of Contents 1. Basic Lease Terms. ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Delivery of Possession and Commencement; Landlord's Work............................................. 3 3. Lease Term; Early Entry......................................................................................................... 4 4. Rent Payment.......................................................................................................................... 4 5. Security Deposit...................................................................................................................... 4 6. Use of the Premises; Hazardous Substances........................................................................... 5 7. Utility Charges; Building Maintenance and Repairs. ............................................................. 8 8. Taxes and Operating Expenses............................................................................................. 10 9. Parking and Storage Areas.................................................................................................... 11 10. Tenant's indemnification....................................................................................................... 11 11. Insurance; Waiver of Subrogation. ....................................................................................... 11 12. Property Damage. ................................................................................................................. 12 13. Condemnation....................................................................................................................... 13 14. Assignment, Subletting and Other Transfers........................................................................ 14 15. Tenant Default. ..................................................................................................................... 14 16. Landlord Default................................................................................................................... 16 17. Surrender at Expiration or Termination................................................................................ 16 18. Mortgage or Sale by Landlord; Estoppel Certificates........................................................... 17 19. Liens...................................................................................................................................... 17 20. Attorneys Fees; Waiver of Jury Trial.................................................................................... 17 21. Limitation on Liability; Transfer by Landlord...................................................................... 18 22. Real Estate Brokers; Finders................................................................................................. 18 23. Other. .................................................................................................................................... 18 24. Special Provisions................................................................................................................. 21 � LEASE z For valuable consideration, Landlord and Tenant hereby covenant and agree as follows: s 1. Basic Lease Terms. a 1.1. Effective Date of Lease. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained s herein, the provisions of this Lease shall be effective on that date as of which both Landlord and a Tenant have executed this Lease as shown next to the respective signatures below (the "Effective � Date"). s 1.2. Landlord. Pacific Realty Associates L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 9 ("Landlord"). to Address for Payment of Rent: Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. �� Unit 64—pbc187 cityofla �z P. O. Box 4900 �3 Portland, OR 97208-4900 �4 (The unit number must be listed on a separate t 5 line from the PO Box.) i� Address for Notices: Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. �� Attn: R/E Counsel—pbc187 cityofla �8 15350 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 �9 Portland, OR 97224 2o Additional Contact Information: Telephone: (503) 624-6300 �� Facsimile: (503) 624-7755 zz 1.3. Tenant. The City of Lake Oswego, a municipal cotporation of the State of Oregon z3 ("Tenant"). za Trade Name: zs Address for Invoices: City of Lake Oswego Police Department 2� PO Box 369 Z� Lake Oswego, OR 97034 2s z9 Address for Notices: City of Lake Oswego Police Department 3o With a copy to: PO Box 369 3 t City Attorney's Office Lake Oswego, OR 97034 32 PO Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ss Additional Contact Infarmation: Telephone: ��l - �P3�J'�� 34 Facsimile: _ �'j03 — (o R� - 7�f(�(p 35 Taxpayer ID Number: q zi —� 00 T/?�?j� 36 1.4. Building. The approximately 25,000 square foot building shown on the attached s� Exhibit A (the "Building"), also known as Building N. 38 1.5. Premises; Premises Area. Suite 600 of the Building located at the address 39 commonly known as 7236 S.W. Durham Road, Portland, Oregon 97224 as generally shown on ao the attached Exhibit B (the "Premises"). The Premises shall consist of approximately 5,001 square ai feet of warehouse and office space(the "Premises Area"). a2 1.6. Outside Area. All areas and facilities within the Park (as defined below) not a3 appropriated to the exclusive occupancy of tenants, including all non-reserved vehicle parking aa areas, traffic lanes, driveways, sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, landscaped areas, signs, service 45 delivery facilities, truck maneuvering areas, h�ash disposal facilities, common storage areas, 4� common utility facilities and all other areas for non-exelusive use (the "Outside Area"). Landlord i reserves the right to change, reconfigure or rearrange the Outside Area and to do such other acts 2 in and to the Outside Area as Landlord deems necessary or desirable. s 1.7. Park. The project in which the Preinises and Building are located (and which a includes the Premises and Building)is commonly known as PacTrust Business Center(the"Park"), s as shown on the attached Exhibit A. 6 1.8. Permitted Use. Tenant shall use the Premises only for police training, property and � evidence storage, and genera] office purposes for the Lake Oswego Police Deparhnent (the s "Permitted Use"). 9 1.9. Lease Term. i o 1.9.L Commencement Date. The date as of which Landlord delivers the Premises t t to Tenant pursuant to Paraeraph 2 (the "CommencemenY Date"), which date shall be no later than iz January 1, 2016 (subject to delays caused by Tenant as set forth in Para ra h 2.1 below). t 3 1.9.2. Rent Commencement Date. Except as provided in Para¢raph 1.10.1 below, ta Tenant shall commence payment of Base Rent on that date which is one (1) full calendar month ts following the Commencement Date (the "Rent Commencement Date"). Tenant shall be t 6 responsible for payment of its proportionate share of Taxes and Operating Expenses pursuant to t7 Para¢raUh 8 during the period of time commencing on the Commencement Date and continuing i s through and including the last day immediately preceding the Rent Commencement Date. i� 1.9.3. Expiration Date. The Lease Term shall expire approximately zo thirty-seven(37) full calendar months following the Commencement Date(the "Expiration Date"), 21 which date is estimated Yo be January 31, 2019, subject to Parat>,ranhs 110.2, 24.1 and 24.2. zz 1.9.4. Initial Term. The "Initial Tetm" shall be for a period of thirty-seven (37) zs full calendar months commencing on the Commencement Date and expiring on the Expiration za Date. If the Commencement Date does not occur on the first day of a month,the Initial Term shall zs include that portion of the month in which the Commencement Date occurs which follows Yhe ze Commencement Date (the "First Partial Month"). z� 1.10. Base Rent. Subject to Paragraphs 1.10.1, 1.10.2 and 4.1,monthlypayments ofbase 2s rent ("Base Rent") shall be according to the following schedule: Monthly' Period of Time Base Rent January 1, 2016 through January 31, 2016 $0.00 February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017 $3,067.00 February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2018 $3,159.00 February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019 $3,254.00 29 30 110.1. Base Rent for First Partial Month. If the Commencement Date does not si occur on the first day of a month, Tenant shall pay Base Rent for the First Partial Month equal to sz Three Thousand Sixty-Seven and No/100 Dollars ($3,067.00), prorated to reflect the number of 33 days during the First Partial Month. 34 110.2. Actual Dates and Monthlv Base Rent Schedule. If the actual 35 Commencement Date is a date other than the estimated date set forth in Para�raph 1.9.1, Landlord 36 and Tenant shall execute and deliver a "Confirmation of Commencement Date Letter". Such s� Confirmation of Commencement Date Letter shall establish and eonfirm the actual ss Commencement Date (which shall be no later than January 1, 2016, subject to delays caused by 3e Tenant as set forth in Paragraph 2.1 below), Rent Commencement Date, Expiration Date and the ao dates for the monthly Base Rent schedule set forth in Para�raphs 1.9 and 1.10,respectively, of this at Lease. Tenant shall execute and deliver the Confirmation of Commencement Date Letter to az Landlord within fifteen (15) days following reeeipt of written request from Landlord. The 43 Confirmation of Commencement Date Letter shall thereupon modify and be incorporated into this a4 Lease. Notwithstanding Paragraph 23.7 of this Lease, Landlord may deliver the Confirmation of as Commencement Date Letter to Tenant by regular U.S. Mail. t 1.103. Abated Base Rent; Riehts Personal to Tenant. This Lease provides for z one (1) full calendar month of "free" rent in the amount of Three Thousand Sixty-Seven and 3 No/100 Dollars ($3,067.00) far the period between the Commencement Date and the Rent 4 Commencement Date (hereinafter referred to as the "Abated Base Rent"). Tenant acknowledges s that Tenant's right to receive credit far the Abated Base Rent is absolutely conditioned upon e Tenant's full, faithful and punctual performance of its obligations under this Lease. Tenant shall � be credited with having paid all of the Abated Base Rent upon expiration of the Lease Term only s if Tenant has (i) fully, faithfully, and punetually performed all of Tenant's obligations under this 9 Lease, (ii) paid all Base Rent and Additional Rent due under this Lease (other than the Abated to Base Rent), (iii) paid all other monetary obligations due under this Lease, and (iv) surrendered the t i Premises in the physical condition required by this Lease. In the event of a default by Tenant of tz any of the terms of this Lease beyond applicable notice and eure periods (if any), the Abated Base �3 Rent shall immediately become due and payable in full and this Lease shall be enforced as if there ta were no such rent abatement or other rent concessions. Tenant's right to the Abated Base Rent is ts personal to City of Lake Oswego Police Department ("LOPD") and may not be assigned or tG otherwise transferred by LOPD in connection with an assignment or other transfer of this Lease or i� otherwise, and Tenant's right to the Abated Base Rent may not be exercised by anyone other than t8 LOPD. Any attempted assignment or other transfer of Tenant's rights in this Paragraph 1.10.3 i y shall be of no effect and shall terminate these rights as of the effective date of the assignment or zo other transfer. z� 1.11. Securitv Deposit. Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four and No/100 Dollars 2z ($3,254.00) (the "Security Deposit"). z3 1.12. Tenant's Provortionate Shares. Subject to Paragraph 8.2, (i) Tenant's initial za proportionate share for Taxes (as defined in Para�raph 8.3) is 2.78%, and (ii) Tenant's initial zs proportionate share for Operating Expenses (as defined in Parag_raph 8•41 is 20.00%. zb 1.13. CC&Rs. None. 2� 1.14. Landlord's Work. Those improvements to the Premises to be constructed by za Landlord pursuant to Paragraph 2.2 below ("Landlord's Work"). z9 1.15. Guarantor(s). None. so This lease (this "Lease") is entered into by Landlord and Tenant as of the Effective Date set forth 3t in the Basic Lease Terms. 3z 2. Delivery of Possession and Commencement; Landlord's Work. s3 2.1. Deliverv. Should Landlord be unable to deliver possession of the Premises on the s4 Commencement Date as estimated in the Basic Lease Terms (i) Tenant shall take possession of ss the Premises when Landlord notifies Tenant that the Premises are ready for delivery to Tenant as 36 set forth in this Lease, (ii)the Commencement Date shall be deferred until Landlord delivers notice 37 tendering possession to Tenant if such delay is not caused by Tenant or Tenant's employees, agents 38 or contractors, and (iii) Tenant and Landlord shall execute the Confirmation of Commencement 3v Date Letter pursuant to Paragraph 1.10.2. If Tenant or TenanYs employees, agents or contractors ao cause construction of Landlord's Wark to be delayed, the Commencement Date shall be the date a� that, in the opinion of Landlord's architect or space planner, substantial completion would have az occurred if such delays had not taken place. Subject to the immediately preceding sentence, in no as event shall the Commencement Date be later than January 1,2016. Landlord shall have no liability aa to Tenant for any delays in the delivery of possession caused by Tenant or Tenant's employees, as agents or contractors, and neither Landlord nor Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease ab as the result of any delays in the delivery of possession; provided, however, that Landlord may a� cancel this Lease without liability to Tenant if permission to construct the Premises or use or as furnish necessary utilities to the Premises is denied or revoked by any governmental agency or a9 public utility with such authority. so 2.2. Landlord's Work;As-Is. Landlord shall clean the carpeting and repaint in the office 5 i portion of the Premises using Building standard colors and finishes (°Landlord's Work"). The 5z Premises shall be delivered to Tenant with Landlord's Work substantially completed. The 53 existence of any "punchlisY'-type items shall not postpone the Commencement Date of this Lease. . i Tenant hereby acknowledges that Tenant has inspected the Premises and, subject to the 2 performance of Landlord's Work, agrees to accept the same"AS IS" and in their present condition, 3 and without any representation or warranty by or from Landlord as to the condition of the Premises, a the habitability of the Premises,the fitness of the Premises for the Permitted Use and/or the conduct s of Tenant's business in the Premises, or the zoning of the Premises. 6 3. Lease Term; Early Entry. � The term of this Lease shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire on the s Expiration Date (the "Lease Term"). If Tenant enters the Premises prior to the Commencement 9 Date with Landlard's prior written consent("Early Entry"),the Expiration Date shall be unchanged t o by such Early Entry. All provisions of this Lease shall be in effect from the date of Early Entry; i t however, Operating Expenses and Tvices shall be abated until the Commencement Date and Base tz Rent shall be abated unti] the Rent Commencement Date. Tenant shall be responsible for the costs i 3 0£all utilities from the date of such Early Entry. ta 4. Rent Payment. ts 4.1. Base Rent; Additional Rent. During the Lease Term, Tenant shall pay to Landlord t6 the Base Rent for the Premises set forth in the Basic Lease Terms and all amounts other than Base t� Rent thaY this Lease requires ("Additional Rent") without demand, deduction or offset. Payment is shall be made in U.S. currency by checks payable to Landlard and mailed to the address for rent i9 payments as set forth above or as otherwise may be designated in writing by Landlard. zo Simultaneous with Tenant's execution and delivery of this Lease to Landlord, Tenant shall pay the zi Base Rent for the first full month of the Lease Term for which Base Rent is due in the amount of 22 Three Thousand Sixty-Seven and No/100 Dollars ($3,067.00). In the event of a First Partial z3 Month, Tenant shall pay Base Rent for such First Partial Month, calculated pursuant to 2a Para�ph 1.10.1, immediately upon receipt of Landlard's invoice therefor. Thereafter, Base Rent 25 and Additional Rent shall be payable in advance on the first day of each month during the Lease 26 Term without demand. Base Rent and Additional Rent for any partial month during the Lease 2� Term shall be prorated to reflect the number of days during the relevant month. Payment by Tenant 28 or receipt by Landlord of any amount less than the full Base Rent or Additional Rent due from 2� Tenant, or any disbursement or statement on any check or letter accompanying any check or rent 3o payment, shall not in any event be deemed an accord and satisfaction. Landlord may accept such 31 check or payment without prejudice to Landlord's right to recover the balance of such rental or 32 pursue any other remedy provided in this Lease. 33 4.2. Lockbox Pavments. If Landlord directs Tenant to pay Base Rent, Additional Rent sa or other charges under this Lease to a "lockbox" or other depository whereby checks issued in 35 payment of such items are initially cashed or deposited by a person or entity other than Landlord 36 (albeit on Landlord's authority) then, for any and all purposes under this Lease: (i) Landlord shall 3� not be deemed to have accepted such payment until five (5) days after the date on which Landlord 3s shall have actually received such funds, (ii) Landlord shall be deemed to have accepted such s9 payment if (and only i fl within said five (5)-day period, Landlord shall not have refunded (or ao attempted to refund) such payment to Tenant and (iii) Landlord shall not be bound by any at endorsement or statement on any check or any letter accompanying any check or payment and no az such endorsement, statement or letter shall be deemed an accord and satisfaction. Nothing in this 43 Paragraph 4.2 shall require Tenant to pay Base Rent or Additional Rent prior to the first day of the 44 month as set forth in ParaQraph 4.1 above and the date upon which the funds are received by the as °lockbox" shall be the date upon which Landlord receives the funds for the purposes of a6 determining whether Tenant is in default under Para raph 151.1(i) or whether interest or late fees a� are due pursuant to Paragranh 23.2 hereo£ Landlord or Landlord's bank may accept such check as or payment without prejudice to Landlord's right to recover the balance of such rent or pursue any a9 other remedy provided in this Lease, at law or in equity. Landlord may change the "lockbox" so address at any time during the Lease Term by providing Tenant with fifteen (15) days prior written 5� notice. 52 5. Security Deposit. 53 Simultaneous with Tenant's execution and delivery of this Lease to Landlord, Tenant shall 54 pay the Security Deposit stated in the Basic Lease Terms. The Security Deposit shall be held by ss Landlord to secure Tenant's obligations under this Lease; however, the Security Deposit is not an t advance rental deposit nor a measure of Landlord's damages for a default by Tenant under this z Lease. Landlord may commingle the Security Deposit with its funds and shall have no obligation s to pay any interest on the Security Deposit. Landlord shall have the right to offset against the a Security Deposit any sums owing from Tenant to Landlord and not paid when due, any damages 5 caused by Tenant's default, the cost of curing any default by Tenant should Landlord elect to do a so, and the cost of performing any repair, maintenance or cleanup that is the responsibility of � Tenant under this Lease. Offset against the Security Deposit shall not be an exclusive remedy in s any of the above cases but may be invoked by Landlord, at its option, in addition to any other 9 remedy provided by law ar this Lease for Tenant's nonperformance. Landlord shall give notice to io Tenant each time an offset is claimed against the Security Deposit, and unless this Lease is i i terminated, Tenant shall within ten (10) days after such notice deposit with Landlord a sum equal iz to the amount of the offset so that the total deposit amount, net of offset, shall remain constant �3 throughout the Lease Term. Tenant's failure to make such deposit after ofFset shall be a default �a under this Lease. Any remaining balance of the Security Deposit (together with a reasonable �s accounring and supporting evidence of the amounts, if any, withheld from the Security Deposit) t� shall be returned by Landlord to Tenant (or, at Landlord's option, to the last assignee of Tenant) i� when TenanYs obligations under this Lease have been fulfilled. is 6. Use of the Premises; Hazardous Substances. i9 6.1. Permitted Use. The Premises shall be used for the Permitted Use set forth in the zo Basic Lease Terms and for no other purpose without Landlord's prior written consent which may zi be withheld in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion. 2z 6.2. Comnliance with Apnlicable Laws and Reauirements. In connection with its use, zs Tenant (i) shall at its expense comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, codes and za orders of any governmental or other publie authority including without limitation, any and all 25 Environmental Laws as defined in Parapsaph 6.7.7 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of z6 1990 (eollectively, together with any supplements or modifications thereto, "Applicable Laws"), 27 and also including, without limitation, those requiring alteration of the Premises because of za Tenant's specific use or required pursuant to Paragraph 6.7; (ii) shall create no nuisance nor allow 29 any objectionable liquid,odor,or noise to be emitted from the Premises; (iii) shall store no gasoline 30 or other highly combustible materials on the Premises which would violate any applicable fire 3� code or regulation nor conduct any operation that shall increase Landlord's fire insurance rates far sz the Premises, the Building or the Park; (iv) shall not invalidate or impair any roof warranty; (v) s3 shall not overload the walls, ceilings floors or electrical circuits of the Premises or Building; sa (vi) shall not permit anything to be done in the Premises or elsewhere in the Building or the Park 35 in any manner that causes injury to the Premises, the Building or the Park or any equipment, 36 facilities or systems therein; and (vii) shall not allow any pets or animals on the Premises, exeept 3� for police dogs. Tenant, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain any and all 3s permits and licenses required in order for Tenant to operate the Permitted Use in the Premises. 39 Any power-driven machinery or equipment which Tenant proposes to install shall be subject to 4o Landlord's prior written consent; without limiting the foregoing, such consent may be conditioned ai upon Tenant retaining at TenanPs sole cost and expense (A) a qualified electrician selected by az Landlord whose opinion shall control regarding electrical circuits and (B) a qualified engineer or a3 archiYect selected by Landlord whose opinion shall control regarding floor loads. Allowable 44 ground floor load shall not exceed five hundred (500) pounds per square foot. as 6.3. Stora¢e. Without limiting the foregoing and subject to Paragraph 6.5, Tenant, at a5 Tenant's sole cost and expense, shall make such alterations and additions to the Premises and the a� Building required due to Tenant's racking configuration and storage of products within the as Premises. Such alterations and additions to the Premises may be required for compliance with 49 applicable building and fire codes, and may include, without limitation, installation of fire rated so separation walls, fire sprinkler system upgrades, racking sprinklers, smoke vents, curtain boards, 5 i small hose stations and firefighter entrances. s2 6.4. Si na e. Tenant, at TenanYs sole cost and expense, may erect a sign stating its 53 name after first securing Landlord's written approval of the size, color, design, wording and sa location. All signage and the installation and maintenance thereofshall comply with all Applicable ss Laws and Landlord's then current signage criteria for the Building and/or Park. No signs shall be s6 painted on the Building or exceed the height of the Building. All signs installed by Tenant shall t be removed, at TenanYs sole cost and expense,upon expiration or earlier termination of this Lease 2 with the sign location restored to its former state. 3 6.5. Alterations. Tenant shall make no alterations, additions or improvements to the a Premises without Landlord's prior written consent as provided herein and without a valid building s permit issued by the appropriate governmental agency. To the extent that any alterations, additions 6 or improvements to the Premises constitute "Major Alterations" (as defined below), Landlord may � withhold its consent in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion; otherwise, Landlord's consent to s any alterations, additions or improvements to Yhe Premises other than Major Alterations shall not 9 be unreasonably withheld. As used herein, "Major Alterations" shall mean any alterations, to additions or improvements (i) which are visible from outside the Premises and/or Building t� (including design and aesthetic changes), and/or (ii) to the exterior of the Building, the roof of the t2 Building, the heating, ventilation and/or air conditioning systems serving the Premises, the fire t3 sprinkler, plumbing, electrical, mechanical and/or any other systems serving the Premises, any ta interior, load-bearing walls, the foundation and/or the slab of the Building. Tenant shall notify ts Landlord in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to commencement of any work to enable i6 Landlord to post a Notice of Non-Responsibility or other notice deemed proper before the t� commencement of work. Any and all such alterations, additions or improvements shall comply 18 with all Applicable Laws including, without limitation, obtaining any required permits or other t9 governmental approvals. Upon termination of this Lease, any alterations, additions and 2o improvements (including without limitation all eleetrical, lighting, plumbing, heating and 21 air-conditioning equipment,doors,windows,partitions,drapery, carpeting, shelving,counters, and z2 physically attached fixtures) made by Tenant shall at once become part of the realty and belong to z3 Landlord unless the terms of the applicable consent provide otherwise, or Landlord requests that za part or all of the additions, alterations or improvements be removed. In such case, Tenant, at its zs sole cost and expense, shall promptly remove the specified additions, alterations or improvements 26 and shall fully repair and restore the relevant portion(s) of the Premises to the condition in which z� Tenant is otherwise required to surrender the Premises under Para�raph 17.1. zs 6.6. Cabling. Tenant shall not install or cause to be installed any cabling or wiring z9 (collectively, "Cabling") without the priar written consent of Landlord as provided in 3o Paraeraph 6.5. Any installation of Cabling shall be performed pursuant to Pazaeraph 6.5, shall 3t meet the requirements of the National Electrical Code(as may be amended from time to time), and 3z shall comply with all Applicable Laws. On or prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this 33 Lease, Tenant, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, shall remove all Cabling so installed by or on 34 behalf of Tenant unless Landlord, in its sole and absolute discretion, elects in writing to waive this ss requirement. Any Cabling removed by Tenant shall be disposed of by Tenant, at Tenant's sole se cost and expense, in accordance with all Applicable Laws. 3� 6.7. Hazardous Substances. 3s 6.7.1. Use of Hazardous Substances. Tenant shall not cause or permit any se Hazardous Substances (as defined in Paragraph 6.7.7) to be spilled, leaked, disposed of or 40 otherwise released on, under or about the Premises, the Outside Area or any other portion of the at Park by Tenant, its employees, agents, contractors or invitees (each, a °Tenant Party"). Subject to a2 the provisions of this Paragranh 6.7, (i) Tenant may use on the Premises only those Hazardous 43 Substances typically used in the prudent and safe operation of the Permitted Use, and (ii) Tenant aa may store such Hazardous Substances on the Premises, but only in quantities necessary to satisfy as Tenant's reasonably anticipated needs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall Tenant a� use any chlorinated solvents on or about the Premises, the Building, the Outside Area or the Park. a� In addition to complying with Parag_raph 6.2, Tenant shall exercise the highest degree of care in as the use, handling and storage of Hazardous Substances and shall take all practicable measures to a9 minimize the quantity and toxicity of Hazardous Substances used, handled or stored on the so Premises. st 6.7.2. Notice of Release. Tenant shall notify Landlord, including delivery of sz notice by facsimile (in addition to delivery of notice as set forth in Para�raph 23.7), immediately 53 upon becoming aware of the following: (i) any spill, leak, disposal or other release of any sa Hazardous Substances on, under or about the Premises, the Outside Area or any other portion of 55 the Park; (ii) any notice or communication from a governmental agency or any other person 56 relating to any Hazardous Substances on,under or about the Premises; or(iii) any violation of any t Environmental Laws with respect to the Premises or TenanYs activities on or in connection with 2 the Premises. 3 6.7.3. Spills and Releases. In the event of a spill, leak, disposal or other release a of any Hazardous Substances on, under or about the Premises, the Outside Area or any other s portion of the Park caused by Tenant or a Tenant Party, or the suspicion or threat of the same, 5 Tenant shall (i) immediately undertake all emergency response necessary to contain, cleanup and 7 remove the released Hazardous Substance(s), (ii) promptly undertake all investigatory, remedial, s removal and other response action necessary or appropriate to ensure that any Hazardous 9 Substances contamination is completely eliminated and all affected portions of the Premises, 1 o Outside Area and Park are returned to the condition that existed prior to the spill, leak, disposal or t i other release, all to Landlord's satisfaction, and (iii) provide Landlord copies of all information iz and reports related to the Hazardous Substances and this event (regardless of whether Tenant is deems the same privileged or confidential), including but not limited to all correspondence with i a any governmental agency regarding the release(or threatened or suspected release)or the response is action, a detailed report documenting all such response action, and a certification that any t6 contamination has been eliminated. All such response action shall be performed, a11 such reports t� shall be prepared and all such certifications shall be made by an environmental consultant ts reasonably acceptableto Landlord. t� 6.7.4. Investi�ations. If Landlord at any time during the Lease Term (including zo any holdover period) reasonably believes that Tenant or a Tenant Party is not complying with any zt of the requirements of this Paraeraph 6•7, Landlord may require Tenant to furnish to Landlord, at 2z Tenant's sole expense and within thirty (30) days following Landlord's request therefor, an zs environmental audit or any environmental assessment with respect to the matters of concern to za Landlord. Such audit or assessment shall be prepared by a qualified consultant acceptable to zs Landlord. 26 6.7.5. Tenant's Indemnification. Except as limited by the Oregon Constitution, 2� and within the liability limits stated in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq., Tenant 2s shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Landlord, its employees and agents, any persons z9 holding a security interest in the Premises or any other portion of the Park, and the respective 3o successors and assigns of each of them, for, from, against and regarding any and all claims, 3t demands, liabilities, damages, fines, losses (including without limitation diminution in value and 3z loss of use), costs (including without limitation the cost of any investigation,remedial, removal or 3s other response action required by Environmental Laws) and expenses(including without limitation sa attorneys fees and expert fees incurred in obtaining advice and incurred at and in preparation for 35 discovery, including depositions, arbitration, trial, appeal, petition for review, administrative 3a proceeding and any litigation or other proceedings in bankruptcy court including those involving 3� issues unique to bankruptcy law)arising out of or in any way relating to the use,treatment,storage, 38 generation, transport, release, leak, spill, disposal or other handling of Hazardous Substances on, 39 under or about the Premises or the Park by Tenant or any other Tenant Party. Landlord's rights ao under this Paraeraph 6.7.5 are in addition to and not in lieu of any other rights or remedies to which at Landlord may be entitled under this Lease or otherwise. In the event any action is brought against az Landlord by reason of any such claim, Tenant shall resist or defend such action or proceeding by a3 counsel satisfactory to Landlord upon Landlord's demand. The obligation to indemnify, defend aa and hold harmless shall include, without limitation, (A) reasonable costs incurred in eonnection as with investigation of site conditions, (B) reasonable costs of any cleanup, remedial, removal or 46 restoration work required by any federal, state or local governmental agency or political 4� subdivision with respect to Hazardous Substances, (C) diminution in value of the Premises and/or 48 any other portion of the Park, (D) damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of space 49 in the Building and/or any other portion of the Park, (E) reasonable sums paid in settlement of so claims, attorneys fees, consultant and laboraYory fees and expert fees, and (F)the value of any loss s t of the use of the Premises or any other portion of the Park or any part thereo£ Tenant's obligations 52 under this Paraera hn 6.7.5 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease for any reason. 53 6.7.6. Landlord's Responsibilitv. If the Premises are or become contaminated by sa Hazardous Substances that are not brought to the Park, or spilled, leaked, released or disposed of, ss by Tenant or any Tenant Party, then Landlord shall take ar cause to be taken all legally required sb steps to remediate the same without reimbursement from Tenant. t 6.7.7. Definitions. The term "Environmental Laws" shall mean any and all z federal, state, or local laws, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, or judicial or administrative 3 decrees or orders relating ta (i) health, safety or environmental protection; (ii) the emissions, 4 discharges, releases or threatened releases of pollutants, contaminants or toxic or hazardous s materials into the environment (including, without limitation, ambient air, surFace water, ground 6 water or subsurface strata); or (iii) the use, storage, treahnent, transportation, manufacture, � refinement, handling, production or disposal of, or exposure to pollutants, contaminants or toxic s or hazardous materials, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental 9 Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 USC §9601 et seq. ("CERCLA"), as amended and �o judicially and administratively interpreted through the date hereof, and all regulations promulgated >> thereunder as of such date. The term "Hazardous Substance" (collectively, "Hazardous t2 Substances") shall mean: (A) any products, materials, solvents, elements, compounds, chemieal i3 mixtures, contaminants, pollutants, or other substances identified as toxic or hazardous under in CERCLA or any other Environmental Laws; and (B) the following substances: PCBs, gasoline, ts kerosene or other petroleum products, toxic pesticides and herbicides, volarile and/or chlorinated te solvents, materials containing asbestos or formaldehyde and radioactive materials. » 7. Utility Charges; Building Maintenance and Repairs. i s 71. Utility Char¢es. Tenant shall pay when due all charges for electricity, natural gas, t9 water, garbage collection,janitorial service, sewer, and all other utilities of any kind furnished to zo the Premises during the Lease Term. If eharges are not separately metered or stated, Landlord 2i shall apportion the utility charges on an equitable basis and Tenant shall pay such charges to zz Landlord within ten (10) days following receipt by Tenant of Landlord's statement for such z3 charges. Landlord shall have no liability resulting from any interruption of utility services caused 2a by fire or other casualty, strike, riot, vandalism, the making of necessary repairs or improvements, 2s or any other cause beyond Landlord's reasonable control. Tenant shall control the temperature in 26 the Premises to prevent freezing of any sprinkler system. z� 7.1.1. Tenant understands that Landlord may be required under applicable law to za obtain, input and disclose certain benchmarking data for the U.S. Environmental Protection 29 Agency's ENERGY STAR� Portfolio Manager. Landlord may also elect to voluntarily obtain, 30 input and disclose such data. Accordingly, within ten (10) days following written request therefor 3t from Landlord (and thereafter as set forth below), Tenant will complete, execute and deliver to 32 Landlord a data release authorization for each utility serving the Premises maintained in Tenant's ss name or otherwise far the account of Tenant, in form and substance required by the relevant utility 34 provider, permitting the relevant utility to disclose to Landlord TenanPs monthly billing data, ss building square footage, occupancy type, operational characteristics and other information se reasonably required for purposes of inputting the benchmarking data required by the U.S. 3� Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAROO Portfolio Manager (the "Data Release sx Authorization"). In addition, if Tenant's name or entity changes, Tenant shall complete, execute 39 and deliver to Landlord an additional Data Release Authorization within ten (10) days following ao receipt of written request therefor from Landlord, TenanYs failure to comply with the provisions ai of this Paragraph 7.1.1 shall be a material default under tltis Lease. a2 7.2. Landlord's Maintenance and Repairs. a3 7.2.1. Costs Not Included In Operating Expenses. Landlord's maintenance,repair 44 and replacement obligations which are paid by Landlord and not reimbursed by Tenant are set 45 forth in this Para�raph 7.2.1. Except for those repairs for which Tenant is responsible pursuant to a6 any provisions of this Lease, Landlord, at its own cost and expense, shall be responsible only for a� (i) roof replacement, (ii) repair and replacement of the foundation of the Building and (iii) repair a8 and replacement of the structural elements of the Building. The terms "roof' and "walls" as used a9 herein shall not include windows, glass or plate glass, doors, special store fronts or office entries. 50 7.2.2. Costs Included In OperatinQ Expenses. Except for those repairs for which si Tenant is responsible pursuant to any provisions of this Lease, Landlord is responsible for sz performing maintenance, repairs and replacements of(i) the exterior paved areas and curbs of the ss Outside Area, (ii) all landscaping of the Building and Outside Area, (iii) the exterior walls of the 5a Building (including painting), gutters, downspouts and roof repairs, (iv) sprinkler systems and ss main sewage line(s) and (v) any other maintenance, repair or replacement items normally 56 associated with the foregoing. The foregoing costs and expenses of such repair, replacement, i maintenance and other such items shall be included as part of Operating Expenses and Tenant shall 2 be responsible for paying its proportionate share thereo£ The amount of Tenant's rental obligation s set forth in Paraaraph 1.10 does not include the cost of such items and Landlord's performance of a repair, replacement, maintenance and other items, is not a condition to payment of such rental s obligations. 5 7.23. Notice to Landlord; TenanPs Waiver. Tenant shall immediately give � Landlord written notice of defect or need for repairs required pursuant to the terms of this Lease, s following the receipt of which Landlord shall promptly repair same or cure such defect. Landlord's 9 liability with respect to any defects, repairs, replacement or maintenance for which Landlord is i o responsible hereunder shall be limited to the cost of such repairs or maintenance or the curing of i i such defect, except to the extent Landlord's failure to repair or cure the relevant item results in a i2 default by Landlord under Paraeranh 16 of this Lease. Tenant waives any right now or hereafter is granted by law to make any repairs which are the responsibility of Landlord upon Landlord's ta failure to make such repairs. is 7.3. Tenant's Maintenance and Renairs. Tenant, at its own cost and expense, shall keep i 5 all parts of the Premises (exce�t for those for which Landlord is expressly responsible hereunder) i� neafly maintained and in good condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear, casualty and ts condemnation excepted, and prompfly make all necessary repairs and replacements (except for tv replacements by Landlord pursuant to Paragraph 7.2) to the Premises. Without limiting the 2o generality of the foregoing, Tenant's responsibility shall include (i)maintenance and repair of any zi portion of the electrical system which exclusively serves the Premises, above-slab plumbing, and zz all drainpipes and sewer line(s) exclusively serving the Premises, (ii) maintenanee, repair and zs replacement of overhead and personnel doors, (iii) replacement of all broken or cracked glass za within or on the exterior of the Premises with glass of the same quality and type, and (iv) pest zs control and janitorial service. Tenant shall refrain from any discharge that will damage the septic zv tank or sewers serving the Premises. Tenant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain and repair 2� all hot water,heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems and equipment within the Premises zs (the °HVAC System") pursuant to manufacturer's guidelines. As of the Commencement Date, 29 Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense, contract with a reputable HVAC service contractor, 3o approved by Landlord in its reasonable discretion (the "HVAC Contractor"), to perform not less st than quarterly inspections and to perform routine maintenance and repairs of the HVAC System 3z (the °HVAC Maintenance Contract"). Tenant shall provide a copy of the HVAC Maintenance 33 Contract to Landlord within ten(10) days after Landlord's request therefor. At all times throughout sa the Lease Term, Tenant shall be solely responsible for all costs for the quarterly inspections and 35 routine maintenance associated with the HVAC Maintenance Contract and all maintenance and 36 repairs performed on the HVAC System, including replacement of all or any portion thereof. If 37 the Premises have a separate entrance, Tenant shall keep the sidewalks abutting the Premises or 3s the separate entrance free and clear of snow, ice, debris, and obstructions of every kind. Tenant 3� shall be responsible for all repairs and alterations in and to the Premises, the Building and the Park 4o and the facilities and systems thereof,the need for which arises out of the performance ar existence at of any alterations made by Tenant; or the act, omission, misuse or neglect of Tenant, a Tenant az Party, Tenant's subtenants ar its subtenanYs employees, agents or contractors. Tenant shall a3 promptly make all repairs in or to the Premises, the Building or the Pazk for which Tenant is 44 responsible. as 7.4. Securitv. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that Tenant is responsible for securing a6 the Premises and that Landlord does not, and shall not be obligated to provide any police personnel a� or other security services or systems for any portion of the Premises,Building, Outside Area and/or a8 Park. a9 7.5. Access to Premises; Interference. Provided that Landlord gives Tenant reasonable so notice (but in no event less than twenty-four (24) hours), Landlord shall have access to the s i Premises at times throughout the Lease Term to perform repairs and maintenance required under sz this Lease and to perform any other alterations or improvements which Landlord deems necessary ss in its reasonable discretion ("Landlord's Future Work"). Landlord and Tenant agree to sa communicate and reasonably cooperate with each other with respect to the performance of ss Landlord's Future Work such that Landlord is able to perform Landlord's Future Work se economically and effieiently without unreasonable disruption to Tenant's continuing operations in 57 the Premises. However, Tenant understands that Landlord may be performing Landlord's Future ss Work during business hours and that Landlord's Future Work may be performed in and around the t exterior of the Premises and in the Premises. Accordingly, notwithstanding any provision to the 2 contrary contained in this Lease and provided that Landlord's Future Work is performed in a 3 reasonable manner, Landlord and Landlord's contractors, agents and employees shall have all 4 access and other rights reasonably required in orderto perform and complete Landlord's Future s Wark. However, because the Premises will be used in part as a secure property and evidence v storage facility, Landlord and Landlord's contractors, agents and employees must be accompanied � by a member or representative of the Lake Oswego Police Department during any entry of tl�e s Premises. Such performance and completion of Landlord's Future Work shall in no way constitute � constructive eviction of Tenant from any portion of the Premises nor shall Tenant be entitled to i o abatement or reduction of Base Rent, Additional Rent or other charges payable by Tenant under i t this Lease as a result thereo£ Landlord shall have no liability for interference with Tenant's use �z when making alterations, improvements or repairs to the Premises, Building, Outside Area or the is Park. ia 8. Taxes and Operating Expenses. ts 8.1. Pavments. Commencing on the Commencement Date (subject to Para�raph 3) and t6 thereafter in advance on the first day of each month during the Lease Term, Tenant shall pay a t� monthly sum as Additional Rent representing Tenant's proportionate share of Taxes and Operating i s Expenses for the Premises. Such amount shall annually be estimated by Landlord in good faith to t� reflect actual or anticipated costs. Upon termination of this I,ease or at periodic intervals during zo the Lease Term, Landlord shall compute its actual costs for such items during the relevant period 2t and shall furnish Tenant with a statement in reasonable detail showing such items. Any 2z overpayment by Tenant shall be credited against payments of Additional Rent to be made by 23 Tenant under this Lease, and any deficiency shall be paid by Tenant within fifteen (15) days after 2a receipt of Landlord's statement. Landlord's records of expenses for Taxes and Operating Expenses zs may be inspected by Tenant not more than one (1) time per annum at reasonable times upon z5 thirty (30) days prior written notice to Landlord; provided, however, that Tenant shall not retain 2� any third party auditor on a contingency fee basis to perform any such audit or inspection. zs 8.2. Tenant's Proportionate Share. Tenant's proportionate share of Taxes shall mean z9 that percentage which the Premises Area set forth in the Basic Lease Terms bears to the total so rentable square footage of all buildings covered by the tax statement for the Taxes. Tenant's 3t proportionate share of Operating Expenses for the Building shall be computed by dividing the 3z Premises Area by the total rentable area of the Building. If in Landlord's reasonable judgment 33 either of these methods of allocation results in an inappropriate allocation to Tenant, Landlord 34 shall select some other reasonable method of determining TenanYs proportionate share. ss 8.3. Taxes Chareed. As used herein, "Taxes" means all taxes, assessments and/or 3� governmental charges of any kind and nature assessed against the Premises, the Building or the 3� Park during the Lease Term and shall include all general real property taxes, all general and special 3s assessments payable in installments, and any rent tax, tax on Landlord's interest under this Lease, 3� or any tax in lieu of the foregoing, whether or not any such tax is now in effect. Landlord shall ao have the right to employ a taY consulting firm to attempt to assure a fair tax burden on the Building at and grounds within the applicable taxing jurisdiction, and Tenant agrees to pay its proportionate az share (calculated in the same manner as Tenant's proportionate share of Taxes) of the cost of such as consultant. Tenant shall not, however, be obligated to pay any tax based upon Landlord's net aa income. In addition, Tenant shall be liable for all taxes levied or assessed against any personal as property or fixtures placed in the Premises. If any such taxes are levied or assessed against ab Landlord or Landlord's property and (i) Landlord pays the same or (ii) the assessed value of a� Landlord's property is increased by inclusion of such personal property and fixtures and Landlord aa pays the increased taxes, then, within thirty(30) days following receipt by Tenant of a copy of the 49 applicable taac bill with Landlord's written request for payment thereof, Tenant shall pay to 5o Landlord such taxes as part of Tenant's payment of Taxes. 51 8.4. OUeratin�penses. "Operating Expenses" charged to Tenant hereunder shall sz mean all costs incurred by Landlord in connection with owning, operating, insuring, maintaining, s3 repairing and replacing the Premises, Building, and all other portions of the Park or Outside Area sa including, without limitation, the cost of all utilities or services not paid directly by Tenant, ss property insurance, liability insurance, property management, maintenance, repair and 56 replacement of landscaping, parking areas, and any other common facilities, and performing 5� Landlord's obligations under Para=�r_aph 7.2.2. Operating Expenses shall include without t limitation, the following: (i) reserves for roof repair, exterior painting and other appropriate z reserves; (ii) the cost, including interest at ten percent (10%) per annusn, amortized over its useful 3 life, of any capital improvement made to any portion of the Park by Landlord after the Effective a Date of this Lease which is required under any Applicable Laws that were not applicable to the s relevant portion of the Park at the time the relevant portion of the Park was constructed; (iii) the 6 wst, including interest at Yen percent (10%) per annum, amortized over its useful life, of � installation of any device or other equipment which improves the operating efficiency of any s system within the Park and thereby reduces Operating Expenses; and (iv) maintenance, repair and � replacement items which have a reasonable life expectancy in excess of five (5) years and which, to if charged to Operating Expenses in one (1) year, would unreasonably distort total Operating tt Expenses for that year and therefore the cost thereof is being spread over the reasonable life tz expectancy of the work performed. Operating Expenses shall not include roof replacement, t3 correction of the Building foundation and/ar correction of deficiencies in structural elements of ia the Building. ts 9. Parking and Storage Areas. tb 9.1. Parkine. Subject to ihe provisions of this Paraerapb 9.1, Tenant, its employees, n agents, contractors and invitees shall have the non-exclusive right to use the common driveways ts and truck court areas located in the Outside Area, subject to the parking rights and rights of ingress i 9 and egress of other occupants. In addition, Tenant, its employees, agents, contractors and invitees 2o shall have the non-exclusive right to use up to five(5)private parking spaces immediately adjacent zt to the Premises. TenanYs parking shall not be reserved and shall be limited to vehicles no larger 2z than standard size automobiles, or standard size pickups or sport utility vehicles. Under no z3 circumstances shall overnight parking be allowed, nor shall trucks, trailers ar other large vehicles za serving the Premises (i) be used for any purpose other than for the loading and unloading of goods zs and materials or (ii) be permitted to block streets and/or ingress and egress to and from the Park. zv Temporary parking of large delivery vehicles in the Park may be permitted only with Landlord's z� prior written consent. Vehicles shall be parked only in striped parking spaces and not in driveways, 28 loading areas or other locations not specifically designated for parking. Handicapped spaces shall z9 only be used by those legally permitted to use them. Pursuant to Paragraph 1.6 of this Lease, 3o Landlord reserves the right to grant parking rights (exclusive and otherwise) within the relevant 3 i portions of the Outside Area to occupants of the Park. 3z 9.2. Storage Areas. Tenant shall not store any materials, supplies or equipment outside 33 the Premises in any unapproved or unscreened area. If Tenant erects any visual barriers for storage 3a areas, Landlord shall have the right to approve the design and location, which approval may be 3s withheld or conditioned in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion and all of which shall be 36 removed upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease as and if required by Landlord. 37 Trash and garbage receptacles shall be kept covered at all times. 3s 10. Tenant's Indemni£►cation. 39 Except as limited by the Oregon Consritution, and within the liability limits stated in the ao Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq., Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless at Landlord for, from, against and regarding any claims, losses, liabilities, damage, causes of action, a2 demands and costs and expenses (including attomeys' fees) arising from or related to (i) Tenant's a3 use of the Premises; (ii) any injury to any person or for the loss of or damage to any property aa (including TenanYs property) occurring in or about the Premises from any cause whatsoever, as exeept to the extent caused by Landlord's negligenee or willful misconduct; (iii) any act or a6 omission of Tenant or a Tenant Party;or(iv)any failure by Tenant to perform any obligation under a� this Lease. In the event any action is brought against Landlord by reason of any such claim,Tenant as shall resist or defend such action or proceeding by counsel satisfactory to Landlord upon a9 Landlord's demand. Landlord shall have no liability to Tenant for any injury, loss or damage so caused by third parties, ar by any condition of the Premises. The obligations under this st Paraeraph 10 shall survive termination of this Lease. sz 11. Insurance; Waiver of Subrogation. ss 11.1. Landlord. Landlord shall keep the Premises insured against fire and other risks 54 covered by a "Causes of Loss - Special Form" property insurance policy and against such other � losses (including, without limitation earthquake, earth movement and flood) as Landlord may z deem reasonable. 3 11.2. Tenant. Tenant shall keep all of Tenant's property on the Premises, and all 4 improvements, alterations and other betterments installed by Tenant, insured against fire and other 5 risks covered by a "Causes of Loss - Special Form" property insurance policy in an amount equal 5 to the replacement cost of such property, the proceeds of which shall, so long as this Lease is in � effect, be used for the repair or replacement of the property so insured. Tenant shall also carry a commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with policy limits of not less e than Two Million and No/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) each occurrence. In addition, if Tenant's to use ofthe Premises includes any activity or matter that would be excluded from coverage under a t t commercial general liability policy, Tenant shall obtain such endorsements to the commercial tz general liability policy or otherwise obtain insuranee to insure all liabiliry arising from such ts activity or matter in such amounts as Landlord may reasonably require. Such commercial general ta liability insurance shall be (i) provided by an insurer or insurers who are approved to issue is insurance policies in the State in which the Premises are located and have an A.M. Best financial t6 strength rating of A- or better and financia] size category of VII or larger, and (ii) shall be �� evidenced by a certificate delivered to Landlord on or prior to the Commencement Date and is annually thereafter stating that the coverage shall not be cancelled or materially altered without t� thirty (30) days advance written notice to Landlard. Landlord shall be named as an additional zo insured on such policy together with, upon written request from Landlord, Landlord's mortgagee z t and Landlord's managing agent. All insurance policies required to be carried by Tenant hereunder zz shall be written as primary policies not contributing with and not in excess of coverage which zs Landlord may carry and shall not have a deductible in excess of a commercially reasonable za amount. 2s 11.3. Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant each hereby releases the other, and 2v the other's partners, officers, directors, members, agents and employees, from any and all liability 2� and responsibility to the releasing party and to anyone claiming by or through it or under it, by zs way of subrogation or otherwise, for all claims or demands whatsoever which arise out of damage z9 or destruction of the releasing party's property to the extent of insurance proceeds received by the so releasing party from insurance required to be carried hereunder (or which would have been st received had such party complied with such requirements) or, if greater, the proceeds actually 3z received from all insurance maintained by the releasing party. Landlord and Tenant grant this s3 release on behalf of themselves and their respective insurance companies and each represents and sa warrants to the other that it is authorized by its respective insurance company to grant the waiver 35 of subrogation contained in this Paragravh 113. This release and waiver shall be binding upon sc> the parties whether or not insurance coverage is in force at the time of the loss or destruction of 3� property referred to in this Paragraph 11.3. 38 12. Property Damage. s� 12.1. Notice; Total Destruction. Tenant shall immediately give writfen notice to ao Landlord if the Premises or the Building are damaged or destroyed. If the Premises or the Building a i should be totally destroyed or so damaged by an insured peril in an amount exceeding thirty percent a2 (30%) of the full construction replacement cost of the Building or Premises, respectively (as used a3 herein, the "Damage Threshold"), Landlord may elect to terminate this Lease as of the date of the aa damage by notice of termination in writing to Tenant within thirty (30) days after such date, in as which event all unaccrued rights and obligations of the parties under this Lease shall cease and 46 terminate except to the extent such obligations specifically survive termination of this Lease. a� 12.2. Partial Destruction. If the Building or the Premises should be damaged by an as insured peril which does not meet the Damage Threshold, or if damage or destruction meeting the a9 Damage Threshold occurs but Landlord does not elect to terminate this Lease, this Lease shall not so terminate and Landlord shall restore the Premises to substantially its previous condition, except s i that Landlord shall not be required to rebuild, repair or replace any part of the partitions, fixtures, sz alterations, additions and other improvements required to be covered by Tenant's insurance s3 pursuant to Paragraph ll.2. If the Preinises are untenantable in whole or part during the period sa commencing upon the date of the occurrence of such damage and ending upon substantial 55 completion of Landlord's required repairs or rebuilding, Base Rent shall be reduced during such 56 period to the extent the Premises are not reasonably usable by Tenant for the Permitted Use. i 123. Damaee Near End of Lease Term. If the damage to the Premises or Building occurs z during the last twelve (12) months of the Lease Term in an amount exceeding twenty-five percent 3 (25%) of the full construction replacement cost of the Building or Premises, respectively, either a Landlord or Tenant may elect to terminate this Lease as of the date the damage occurred,regardless s of the sufficiency of any insurance proceeds. The party electing to terminate this Lease shall give 5 written notification to the other party of such election within thirty(30) days after Tenant's notice � to Landlord of the occurrence of the damage, in which event all unacerued rights and obligations s of the parties under this Lease shal] cease and terminate except to the extent such obligations e specifically survive termination of this Lease. io 12.4. Repair of Damaee. All repairs made by Landlord pursuant to this Para rg aph 12 �� shall be accomplished as soon as is reasonably possible, subject to force majeure as described in tz Parag,_ranh 23.1. Landlord's good faith estimate of the cost of repairs of any damage, ar of the i3 replacement cost of the Premises or the Building, shall be conclusive as between Landlord and �4 Tenant. The repair and restoration of the Premises shall be made pursuant to plans and i 5 specifications developed by Landlord in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion and judgment, and ib such plans and specifications shall exclude all equipment, fixtures, improvements and alterations u installed by Tenant. All insurance proceeds for repairs shall be payable solely to Landlord, and ts Tenant shall have no interest therein. Nothing herein shall be construed to obligate Landlord to t<� expend monies in excess of the insurance proceeds received by Landlord. Landlord shall be zo responsible for the insurance deductible, unless the loss is caused by Tenant or Tenant's agents, 2i employees, officers or representatives, in which case, and notwithstanding the provisions of 2z Paraera hp 11.3, Tenant shall be responsible for the amount of the deductible. 23 12.5. Other Damaee. If the Premises ar the Building is substantially or totally destroyed za by any cause whatsoever which is not covered by the foregoing provisions of this Paraeraph 12, 2s this Lease shall terminate as of the date the destruction occurred; provided, however, that if the 26 damage does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the full construction replacement cost of the z� Building or Premises respectively, Landlord may elect (but will not be required) to rebuild the 28 Premises at Landlord's own expense, in which case this Lease shall remain in full force and effect. z� Landlord shall notify Tenant of such election within thirty (30) days after the casualty. 30 13. Condemnation. 3t 13.1. Partial Takine. If a portion ofthe Premises is condemned and Paragra hp 13•2 does sz not apply, this Lease shall continue on the following terms: 33 13.1.1. Landlord shall be enritled to all of the proceeds of condemnation, and 3a Tenant shall have no claim against Landlord as a result of the condemnation. ss 13.1.2. Landlord shall proceed as soon as reasonably possible to make such repairs 36 and alterations to the Premises as are necessary to restore the remaining Premises to a condition as s� comparable as reasonably practicable to that existing at the time of condemnation. Landlord need ss not incur expenses for restoration in excess of the amount of condemnation proceeds received by 39 Landlord after payment of all reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys fees incurred by Landlord ao in connection therewith. at 131.3. Base Rent and Operating Expenses shall be abated during the period of az restoration to the extent the Premises are not reasonably usable by Tenant for the Permitted Use a3 pursuant to Paraeraph 6.1, and Base Rent shall be reduced (and Operating Expenses appropriately 44 adjusted) for the remainder of the Lease Term in an amount equal to the reduction in rental value as of the Premises caused by the taking. 46 13.2. Total Takine. If a condemning authority takes the entire Premises or a portion a7 sufficient to render the remainder unsuitable for Tenant's use, then either party may elect to as terminate this Lease effective on the date that title passes to the condemning authority. Landlord a� shall be entitled to all of the proceeds of condemnation, and Tenant shall have no claim against so Landlord as a result of such condemnation. t 14. Assignment, Subletting and Other Transfers. 2 14.1. General. Neither this Lease nor any part of the Premises may be assigned, 3 mortgaged, subleased or otherwise transferred, nor may a right of use of any portion of the a Premises be conferred on any person or entity by any other ineans, without the prior written 5 consent of Landlord which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed so long as there is no � existing default under this Lease but which inay be issued subject to reasonable conditions. A � change of ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of ownership interests in Tenant shall be s deemed an assignment. Priar to effectuating any assignment, sublease or other transfer, Tenant 9 shall notify Landlord in writing of the name and address of the proposed transferee, and deliver to to Landlord with such notice a true and complete copy of the proposed assignment agreement, �� sublease or other occupancy agreement, current financial statements of such proposed transferee, iz a statement of the use of the Premises by such proposed transferee and such other information or ts documents as may be necessary or appropriate to enable Landlord to determine the qualifications ia of the proposed transferee together with a request that Landlord consent thereto ("TenanYs u Notice"). Without limiting Landlord's ability to deny or condition consent for any other reason, it t� shall not be considered unreasonable if Landlord's consent to a proposed sublease, assignment or » other transfer is denied based on the following. (i) the business of'the proposed transferee (A) is ts not compatible with the nature and character of the Park or the businesses in the Park and/or t9 (B) will conflict with any exclusive uses or use restrictions that Landlord has granted to other zo occupants of the Park, (ii) the financial strength of the proposed transferee is not at least equal to zi the financial strength of Tenant either at the time Tenant entered into this Lease or at the time of zz the proposed transfer(whichever is greater), (iii) the proposed transferee will excessively overpark 23 the Building and/or the Park with automobiles or trucks (excessively overpark shall mean that the za proposed transferee's parking will violate local parking restricrions or will interfere with other 25 tenants occupying the Building or the Park), (iv) the proposed transferee cannot demonstrate to zb Landlord's reasonable satisfaction the management skills or experience necessary, in Landlord's z� reasonable opinion, to be successful in the Premises, (v) the proposed transferee has a record of zs environmental contamination or their anticipated use of the Premises involves the generation, z9 storage, use, sale, treatment, release or disposal of any Hazardous Substances, or(vi) the proposed 3o form of sublease, assignment or other occupancy agreement is unacceptable (unacceptable form 3t of sublease, assignment or other occupancy agreement shall mean that the content and format of 3z the form are not eonsistent with the terms of this Lease or are not consistent with the terms and 33 requirements of Landlord's loan documents for the Building). Any attempted assignment, sa subletting, transfer or encumbrance by Tenant in violation of the terms and covenants of this 3s ParaQraph 14.1 shall be void. 36 14.2. No Release; Excess Rent. No assignment, subletting or other transfer, whether 3� consented to by Landlord or not, or permitted hereunder, shall relieve Tenant of its liability under 3R this Lease. If an event of default occurs while the Premises or any part thereof are assigned, sublet 39 or otherwise transferred, then Landlord, in addition to any other remedies herein provided, or ao provided by law,may collect directly from such assignee, sublessee or transferee all rents payable at to Tenant and apply such rent against any sums due Landlord hereunder. No such collection shall az be construed to constitute a novation or a release of Tenant from the further performance of 43 Tenant's obligations hereunder. If Tenant assigns or otherwise transfers this Lease or sublets the 44 Premises for an amount in excess of the rent called for by this Lease, such excess shall be paid to as Landlord within ten (10) days following receipt by Tenant. 46 15. Tenant Default. 47 15.1. Default. Any of the following shall constitute a default by Tenant under this Lease: as 15.1.1. TenanYs failure to (i) pay rent or any other charge under this Lease within 49 five (5) days after it is due or (ii) immediately cure or remove any lien pursuant to Paragraph 19 so or (iii) except as provided in Para ra hs 15.1.2 throu¢h 15.1.4, comply with any otber term or st condition within thirty (30) days following written notice from Landlord specifying the s2 noncoinpliance. If any failure described in clause (iii) of the immediately preceding sentenee 53 cannot be cured within the thirty(30)-day period, this provision shall be deemed complied with so sa ]ong as Tenant commences correction within such period and thereafter proceeds in good faith and ss with reasonable diligence to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. � 151.2. Tenant's insolvency; assignment for the benefit of its creditors; TenanYs z voluntary petition in bankruptcy or adjudication as bankrupt; attachment of or the levying of s execution on the leasehold interest and failure of Tenant to secure discharge of the attachment or 4 release of the levy of execution within ten (10) days; or the appointment of a receiver far Tenant's 5 properties. 6 15.1.3. Abandonment of the Premises by Tenant. � 15.1.4. Failure of Tenant to deliver the documents or agreements required under s Paraeraph 18.1 within the relevant time period speeified therein. 9 15.2. Remedies for Default. For any default as described in Paraeraph 15.1, Landlord t o shall have the right to pursue any one(1) or more of the following remedies in addition to all other t i rights or remedies provided herein or at law or in equity, without any notice or demand, except as �2 set forth below, of any kind or nature whatsoever to Tenant or to any other party liable, in whole ts or in part, for the performance of Tenant's obligations under this Lease: t a 15.2.1. Terminate this Lease and/or Tenant's right to possession of the Premises and is Tenant's other rights under this Lease by written notice to Tenant without relieving Tenant from i 6 its obligation to pay damages. t� 15.2.2. Re-enter and take possession of the Premises and remove any persons or t s property by legal action or by self-help with the use of reasonable force and without liability for t9 damages and without having accepted a surrender. Tenant's liability to Landlord for damages shall 2o survive the tenancy. Landlord may, after such retaking of possession, relet the Premises upon any zi reasonable terms. No such reletting shall be construed as an acceptance of a surrender of Tenant's zz leasehold interest. 23 15.23. In the event of termination or retaking of possession following default, u Landlord shall be entitled to reeover immediately, without waiting until the due date of any future 25 rent or until the date fixed for expiration of the Lease Term, the following amounts as damages: Ze (i) The loss of rental from the date of default until a new tenant is 27 secured and paying rent. zs (ii) The reasonable costs of reentry and reletting including without 29 limitation the cost of any cleanup, refurbishing, removal and disposal of Tenant's property and 3o fixtures, or any other expense occasioned by TenanYs default including but not limited to st remodeling or repair costs, attorney fees, court costs, broker commissions, and marketing costs. 3z (iii) Any excess of the value of the rent and all of Tenant's other 33 obligations under this Lease over the reasonable expected return from the Premises for the period 3a commencing on the earlier of the date of trial or the date the Premises are relet, and continuing 35 through the end of the Lease Term. The present value of future amounts shall be computed using 3c a discount rate equal to the prime loan rate in effect on the date of trial of major national banks 3� who are members of the Federa] Reserve System, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 3s Corporation and are located in the State in which the Premises are located. Notwithstanding the 39 foregoing, in no case shall damages for excess value of rent and other Tenant obligations be ao assessed for any period in excess of 180 days following the earlier of the date of trial or the date ai the Premises are relet. az 15.3. No Bar of Action(s). Landlord may sue periodically to recover damages during the a3 period conesponding to the remainder of the Lease Term, and no action for damages shall bar a aa later action for damages subsequently accruing. as 15.4. Landlord Performance. If Tenant fails to perform any obligation under this Lease, a5 Landlord shall have the option to do so after five (5) days written notice to Tenant or upon shorter a� notice in an emergency situation. All of Landlord's expenditures incurred in connection with such as performance shall be reimbursed by Tenant on demand together with interest at the rate specified a9 in Paragraph 23•2 from the date of expenditure until repaid. Such action by Landlord and any so reimbursement by Tenant shall not waive any default or any other remedies available to Landlord s i because of the default. i 15.5. No Exclusion. The foregoing remedies shall be in addition to and shall not exclude z any other remedy available to Landlord at law or in equity. s 16. Landlord Default. a Landlord shall be in default under this Lease if it shall fail to comply with any term, s provision or covenant of this Lease and shall not cure such failure within thirty (30) days after 6 written notice thereof to Landlord unless such cure cannot reasonably be accomplished within such � thirty (30)-day period. Landlord shall have sueh additional time as is reasonably necessary to 8 accomplish such cure provided Landlord promptly commences and diligently prosecutes such cure 9 to completion. t o 17. Surrender at Expiration or Termination. >> 17.1. Surrender. On expiration or early termination of this Lease, Tenant shall deliver �z all keys to Landlard, have final utility readings made and pay all utiliry accounts current on the ts date of move out, and surrender the Premises clean and free of debris inside and out, with all ta mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in good operating condition, all signage removed is and defacement corrected, and all repairs called for under this Lease completed. The Premises tb shall be delivered in the same condition as at the Commencement Date, subject only to damage by i7 casualty, the provisions of Paraeraphs 6.5, 6.6, 9.2 and 17.2 and depreciation and wear from �8 ordinary use. Tenant shall remove all of its furnishings and trade fixtures that remain its property i� and restore all damage resulting from such removal. Failure to remove said property shall be an zo abandonment of same, and Landlord shall have the absolute right to deem the same to be without z� value and to remove and/or dispose of it in any manner whatsoever without liability, and Tenant z2 shall be liable to Landlord for any costs of removal, restoration, transportation to storage, storage z3 and/or disposal, with interest on all such expenses as provided in Para¢ravh 23.2. The provisions 2a ofthis Parag�a hp 17.1 (including,without limitation,all provisions refereneed herein) shall survive zs the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease. 2� 17.2. Removal of Hazardous Substances. Upon expiration of this Lease or sooner z� termination of this Lease for any reason, Tenant shall remove all Hazardous Substances and 2a facilities used for the storage or handling of Hazardous Substances from the Premises and restore 29 the affected areas by repairing any damage caused by the installation or removal of the facilities. 3o Following such removal, Tenant shall certify in writing to Landlord that all such removal is s� complete. Until such time as Tenant has fulfilled all the requirements of Yhis Paragraph 17.2 (in 3z addition to any other requirements), Landlord may treat Tenant as a holdover Tenant as provided 33 below; provided, however, that any such continuation of this Lease shall not relieve Tenant of its sa obligations under this Para�ra hp 17.2. 35 17.3. Failure to Vacate. If Tenant fails to vacate the Premises when required and holds 36 over without Landlard's prior written consent, Landlord may elect either (i) to treat Tenant as a 3� tenant from month to month, subject to all provisions of this Lease except the provision for Lease 3s Term and at a rental rate equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Base Rent payable by 3� Tenant immediately preceding the scheduled expiration of the Lease Term plus Additional Rent, 40 or(ii)to treat Tenant as a tenant at sufferance,eject Tenant from the Premises and recover damages ai caused by wrongful holdover including, without limitation, as set forth in Para�raph 17.4. Failure 42 of Tenant to remove furniture, fumishings, cabling or other telecommunications equipment, or as trade fixtures which Tenant is required to remove under this Lease shall constitute a failure to aa vacate to which this Paragraph 17.3 shall apply if such property not removed substantially as interferes with occupancy of the Premises by another tenant or with occupancy by Landlord for ae any purpose including preparation for a new tenant. If a month-to-month tenancy results from a a� holdover by Tenant under this Paragraph 17.3, the tenancy shall be terminable upon thirty (30) as days written notice from Landlord. Tenant waives any notice that would otherwise be provided a� by law with respect to a month-to-month tenancy. 50 17.4. Indemnifieation. Tenant acknowledges that, if Tenant holds over without si Landlord's consent as provided above, such holding over may compromise or otherwise affect 52 Landlord's ability to enter into new leases with prospective tenants regarding the Premises and/or 53 the Building. Therefore, if Tenant fails to surrender the Premises upon the expiration or other sa termination of this Lease, then, in addition to any other liabilities to Landlord aceruing therefrom, ss and except as ]imited by the Oregon Constitution, and within the liability limits stated in the i Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq., Tenant shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold z Landlord harmless for, from, against and regarding any and all obligations, losses, claims, actions, 3 causes of action, liabilities, penalries, damages (including consequential and punitive damages), a costs and expenses (including reasonable attomeys and consultants fees and expense) resulting 5 from such failure including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any claims made by � any succeeding tenant founded upon such failure to surrender and any lost profits to Landlord � resulting therefrom. The provisions of this Paraera hn 17.4 are in addition to, and do not affect, x Landlord's right to re-entry or other rights hereunder or provided by law. Tenant's obligations 9 under this Paraera hn 17.4 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease. io 18. Mortgage or Sale by Landlord; Estoppel Certificates. t t 18.1. Pnoritv. This Lease is and shall be priar to any mortgage or deed of trust tz (°Encumbrance") recorded after the Effective Date of this Lease and affecting the Building and ts the land upon which the Building is located. However, if any lender holding an Encumbrance ia secured by the Building and the land underlying the Building requires that this Lease be ts subordinate to the Encumbrance, then Tenant agrees that this Lease shall be subordinate to the t6 Encumbrance if the holder thereof agrees in writing with Tenant that no foreclosure, deed given t� in lieu of the foreclosure, or sale pursuant to the terms of the Encumbrance, or other steps or ts procedures taken under the Encumbrance shall affect Tenant's right to quiet possession of the t9 Premises so long as Tenant pays rent and timely observes and performs all of the provisions of this zo Lease. If the foregoing condition is met, Tenant shall execute the written agreement and any other 2i documents required by the holder of the Encumbrance to accomplish the purposes of this zz Para�raph 18.1 within twenty (20) days following receipt thereof. z3 18.2. Attornment. If the Building is sold as a result of foreclosure of any Encumbrance 24 thereon or otherwise transferred by Landlord or any successor, Tenant shall attorn to the purchaser zs or transferee, and the transferor shall have no further liability hereunder. z6 18.3. Estoppel Certificate. Tenant shall within twenty (20) days after norice from 2� Landlord execute and deliver to Landlord a certificate stating whether or not this Lease has been 2s modified and is in full force and effect and specifying any modifications or alleged breaches by z9 the other party. The certificate shall also state the amount of Base Rent and Additional Rent, the so amount of the Security Deposit (if any),the amount of any prepaid Base Rent and Additional Rent 3i and any other factual information reasonably requested by Landlord. Failure to deliver the 32 certificate within the specified time shall be conclusive upon Tenant that this Lease is in full force 33 and effect and has not been rnodified except as may be represented by Landlord. 3a 19. Liens. 35 Tenant shall keep the Premises free from any liens arising out of any work performed, 36 materials furnished or obligations incurred by or on behalf of Tenant and shall indemnify, defend 3� and hold Landlord hannless for, from, against and regarding all claims, costs and liabilities, ss including attorneys fees and costs, in connection with or arising out of any such lien or claim of 39 lien. ao 20. Attorneys Fees; Waiver of Jury Trial. at In the event that any party shall bring an acrion to enforce its rigbts under this Lease, the a2 prevailing party in any such proceeding shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys,witness a3 and expert fees and costs of the proceeding incurred at and in preparation for discovery(including aa depositions), arbitration, trial, appeal and review, and also any litigation or other proceedings in 45 bankruptcy including those involving issues unique to bankruptcy law. For purposes hereof, the 46 reasonable fees of Landlard's in-house attorneys or Tenant's in-house attorneys, as the case may a� be, who perform services in connection with any such enfarcement action are recoverable, and as shall be based on the fees regularly charged by private attorneys with the equivalent number of 49 years of experience in the relevant subject matter area of the law, in law firms in the City of 5o Portland, Oregon with approximately the same number of attorneys as are employed by Landlord's si Law Department or Tenant's Law Department, as the case may be. The provisions of this sz Paraeraph 20 are separate and severable and shall survive a judgment on this Lease. Disputes s3 between the parties which are to be litigated shall be tried before a judge without a jury. t 21. Limitation on Liability; Transfer by Landlord. 2 21.1. Property and Assets. Tenant shall look solely to the property and assets of Landlord 3 for the payment of any claim against Landlord or for the performance of any obligation of a Landlord; neither the joint venturers, general partners, limited partners, members, employees, nor s agents (as the case may be) of Landlard shall have any personal liability for obligations entered 6 into on behalf of Landlord (or its predecessors in interest) and their respective properties shall not � be subj ect to the claims of any person in respect of any such liability or obligation. As used herein, 8 the words "property and assets of Landlord" means only Landlord's interest in the Building and 9 excludes all other assets of Landlord and any rights of Landlord for the payment of capital �0 contributions or other obligations to it by any joint venturer, general partner, limited partner or t i member (as the case may be) in such capacity. tz 21.2. Transfer bv Landlord. All obligations of Landlord hereunder will be binding upon t3 Landlard only during the period of its possession of the Premises and not thereafter. The term 14 "Landlord" shall mean only the owner of the Premises for the time being, and if such owner 15 transfers its interest in the Premises, such owner shall thereupon be released and discharged from �e all covenants and obligations of the Landlord thereaf[er accruing, but such covenants and v obligations shall be binding during the Lease Term upon each new owner for the duration of each ts owner's ownership. t9 21.3. Other Occupants. Landlord shall have no liability to Tenant for loss or damages zo arising out of the acts or inaction of other tenants or occupants. 2i 22. Real Estate Brokers; Finders. zz The parties acknowledge that Terry New of Cushman & Wakefield of Oregon has 23 represented Landlord in the negotiation of this Lease and that a real estate commission shall be za paid to Cushman & Wakefield of Oregon (Terry New) by Landlord pursuant to a separate 25 agreement. Each party shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold the other party harmless for, 2e from, against and regarding all claims, costs, demands, actions, liabilities, losses and expenses z� (including the reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel chosen by the other party) arising out of or 2s resulting from any claims that may be asserted against such other party,by any other broker, finder 29 or other person with whom the party bearing the indemnity obligation has or purportedly has dealt. 3o Each party's respective obligations pursuant to the foregoing indemnity shall survive the expiration 3 i or sooner termination of this Lease. 3z 23. Other. 33 23.1. Force Maieure. The occurrence of any of the following events shall excuse the 34 performance of such obligations of Landlord or Tenant to the extent thereby rendered impossible 35 or not reasonably practicable for so long as such event continues so long as the party under this 36 Lease required to perform gives prompt notice of such delay to the other party: strikes; lockouts; 3� labor disputes; acts of God; inabiliry to obtain labor, materials or reasonable substitutes therefor; 3a governmental restrictions, regulations, or controls;judicial orders; enemy or hostile government 3� action; terrorism; civil commotion; fire or other casualty; condemnation and other causes beyond 4o the reasonable control of the party obligated to perform; provided, however, that in no event will at the occurrence of any of said events or causes excuse the failure to pay rent or any other payment az to be made by Tenant hereunder strictly as and when required under this Lease. as 23.2. Interest; Late Charges. Rent not paid within Cen (10) days of wben due shall bear 44 interest from the date due until paid at the rate of the lesser of(i) ten percent (10%) per annum or as (ii) the maximum rate permitted by Applicable Law. Landlord may at its option impose a late a6 charge of $.OS for each $1.00 of rent for rent payments made more than ten (10) days late in a� addition to interest and other remedies available for default. Any such late charge and interest aa shall be payable by Tenant as Additional Rent hereunder, and shall be payable within thirty (30) a9 days of Landlord's written demand therefor. Tenant acknowledges and agrees that any such late so payment by Tenant will cause Landlord to incur costs and expenses not contemplated by this 5 i Lease,the exact amounts of which will be extremely difficult to ascertain, and that such late charge 5z represents a fair estimate of the costs and expenses which Landlord would incur by reason of 53 Tenant's late payment. Tenant further agrees that such late charge shall neither constitute a waiver t of TenanYs default with respect to such overdue amount nor prevent Landlord from exercising any z other right or remedy available to Landlord. s 23.3. Captions; Paragranh Headines. The captions and headings used in this Lease are a for the purpose of convenience only and shall not be construed to limit or extend the meaning of 5 any part of this Lease. Reference to a "Paragraph" shall mean reference to either a specified � numbered paragraph or subparagraph of this Lease. � 23.4. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict perFormance of any provision of this 8 Lease shall not be a waiver of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance of the � same provision in the future or of any other provision. �0 23.5. Succession. Subject to the limitations on transfer of TenanYs interest, this Lease t t shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. tz 23.6. Entry for Ins ection. Landlord and its authorized representatives shall have the i3 right to enter upon the Premises with reasonable notice (but in no event shall less than ia twenty-four (24) hours notice be required) to determine Tenant's compliance with this Lease, to i s make necessary repairs to the Building or the Premises, or to show the Premises or the Building to i 5 any prospective tenant or purchasers. Landlord may place and maintain upon the Building and/or i� Premises notices for leasing or sale of the Building and/or the Premises. Landlord may enter upon is the Premises without notice by any means necessary in the case of an emergency involving an �9 immediate threat to life safety. Except in the case of such an emergency, because the Premises zo will be used in part as a secure property and evidence storage facility, Landlord and Landlord's zt contractors, agents and employees must be accompanied by a member or representative of the 2z Lake Oswego Police Department during any entry of the Premises. 2s 23.7. Notices. Any notice permitted or required to be given hereunder shall be in writing 2a and shall be given by personal delivery or certified United States mail (return receipt requested), zs U.S. Express Mail or overnight air courier, in each case postage or equivalent prepaid, addressed z5 to the address for notices set forth in the Basic Lease Terms. The person to whom and the place 2� to which notices are to be given may be changed from time to time by either party by written notice zs given to the other party. If any notice is given by mail, it shall be effective upon the earlier of 29 (i)seventy-two(72)hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail with postage prepaid,or(ii) actual delivery 30 or refusal to accept such delivery, as indicated by the return receipt; and if given by personal 31 delivery, U.S. Express Mail or by overnight air courier, when delivered. sz 23.8. Entire AQreement. This Lease is the entire agreement between the parties,and there 33 are no agreements or representations between the parties except as expressed herein. 3a 23.9. Warranties of Landlord. The person executing this Lease on behalf of Landlord 35 warrants to TenanE that Landlord is a valid and existing corporation or other relevant entity, that 36 Landlord has all right and authority to enter into this Lease,and that the person exeeuting on behalf 3� of Landlord is authorized to do so. ss 23.10. Warranties of Tenant. 39 23.10.1. Authoritv. The person(s) executing this Lease on behalf of Tenant ao warrant(s)to Landlord that Tenant has all right and authority to enter into this Lease, and that each at and every person executing on behalf of Tenant is authorized to do so. 42 2310.2. Incorporation; Formation. Tenant represents and wanants to Landlord a3 that (i) TenanY is duly organized, and validly existing under the laws of the State of Oregon as of a4 the Effective Date and that Tenant shall remain so throughout the Lease Term, and (ii) Tenant is as qualified to do business in, and is in good standing under,the laws of the State of Oregon as of the 46 Effective Date and that Tenant shall remain so throughout the Lease Term. 4� 23.10.3. Evidence. Upon Landlord's request, Tenant shall provide evidence as satisfacYory to Landlord confirming the warranties set forth in this Paragraph 23.10. a9 23.11. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of the performance of each of Tenant's so obligations under this Lease. i 23.12. Modifications. This Lease may not be modified except by written endorsement z attached to this Lease, dated and signed by the parties. 3 23.13. No Appurtenances. This Lease does not create any rights to light and air by means a of openings in the walls of the Building, any rights or interests in parking facilities, or any other 5 rights, easements or licenses, by implication or otherwise, except as expressly set forth in this b Lease or its exhibits. � 23.14. Financial Statements. Upon written request of Landlord, Tenant shall furnish to 8 Landlord, within ten (10) days following receipt of Landlord's written request, Tenant's current 9 financial statements (including balance sheet and income statement for the year most recently io ended); Tenant agrees that these financial statements must be accurate and be prepared in the i t ordinary course of Tenant's business and, if not audited, certified by the chief financial officer or t z accounting officer of Tenant that such statements have been prepared in accordance with Generally is Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Landlord may make such financial statement available i a to any prospective lender or purchaser of the Park or any portion thereof. Landlord shall otherwise ts keep such financial statement confidential and shall require any such prospective lender or �6 purchaser to do the same. t� 2315. Rules and Reeulations. Landlord shall haue the right to make and enforce rules, ts regulations and criteria consistent with this Lease for the purpose of promoting safety, order, t� cleanliness and good service to the tenants and other occupants of the Park. Copies of all such 2o rules and regulations, if any, shall be furnished to Tenant and shall be complied with as if part of 2i this L,ease. 22 23.16. Apnlicable Law; Severability. This Lease shall be construed, applied and enforced 23 in accordance with the laws of the State in which the Premises are located. If a court of competent za jurisdiction holds any portion of this Lease to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable as written, it is 25 the intention of the parties that (i) sueh portion of this Lease be enforced to the extent permitted z6 by law and (ii) the balanee of this Lease remain in full force and effect. It is also the intention of 2� the parties that in lieu of each clause or provision of this Lease that is illegal, invalid or zs unenforceable there be added, as a part of this Lease, a clause or provision as similar in terms to z9 such illegal, invalid or unenforceable clause or provision as may be possible and be legal, valid 3o and enforceable. si 23.17. Landlord's Consent. Whenever Landlord's consent or approval is required under sz this Lease, exeept as otherwise expressly provided in this Lease, Landlord may grant or withhold 33 such consent or approval in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion. 3a 23.18. Joint and Several Liabilitv. In the event Tenant now or hereafter consists of more 35 than one person, firm or corporation, then all such persons, firms or corporations shall be jointly s� and severally liable as Tenant under this Lease. s� 23.19. Construction and Intemretation. All provisions of this Lease have been negotiated ss by Landlord and Tenant at arm's length and neither party shall be deemed the author of this Lease. 39 This Lease shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship or alleged ao authorship of any provision hereof or by reason of the status of the respective parties as Landlord 41 or Tenant. 4z 23.20. No Recordation. Neither this Lease, nor any short form or memorandum thereof, a3 shall be recorded in any manner against the real property of which the Premises comprises a aa portion. as 23.21. No Partnershio Created. Neither this Lease nor the calculation and payment of Base 46 Rent, Additional Rent or any other sums hereunder, is intended to create a partnership or joint 4� venture between Landlord and Tenant, or to create a principal-and-agent relationship between the as parties. a� 23.22. OFAC. Tenant represents and warrants to Landlord that Tenant is not and shall not so become a person or entity with whom Landlord is restricted from doing business under any current s t or future regulations of the Office of Fareign Asset Control ("OFAC") of the Department of the s2 Treasury(including,but not limited to,those named on OFAC's Specially Designated and Blocked i Persons list) or under any current or future statute, executive order (including, but not limited to, z the September 24, 2001, Executive Order Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With 3 Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism), or other govemmental action a and is not and shall not engage in any dealings or transaction or be otherwise associated with such 5 persons or entities. 6 23.23. Equal Emnlovment Opportunitv. Landlord and Tenant shall abide by the � requirements of 41 CFR 60-300.5(a) and 41 CFR 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit s discrimination against quali6ed individuals and protected veterans on the basis of disability � or veteran status, and require affirmative action by covered prime contractors and to subcontractors to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities t� and protected veterans. i2 23.24. Counterparts; Delivery bv Facsimile or Electronic Mail. This Agreement may be t3 executed in counterparts, each of which will be considered an original and all of which together ta will constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement or any counterpart may be executed t s and delivered by facsimile or by electronic mail in pdf format and such signatures shall be binding t6 upon the party delivering the same as if they were originals, with an executed original hard copy i� to follow via overnight courier or U.S. mail at the request of any party hereto. is 23.25. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by i9 this reference: zo Exhibit A Site Plan Showing the Park and the Building 2t Exhibit B Site Plan Showing the Premises zz 24. Special Provisions. z3 24.1. Option to Renew. Subject to the condition that Tenant shall not, at the time za Landlord receives an Option Notice hereunder or at the time of commencement of any Renewal z5 Term hereunder, be in default of any of the terms of this Lease beyond applicable notice and cure z6 periods (if any), Tenant is hereby granted the option to renew the Lease Term for two (2) periods 2� of twenty-four (24) months each (singularly, a "Renewal Term" and collectively, the "Renewal zs Terms"), the first such Renewal Term to commence on the day following the expiration of the z9 Initial Term of this Lease and the remaining Renewal Term(s) to commence on the day following 3o the expiration of the immediately preceding Renewal Term. Tenant must exercise this option, if 3t at all, by delivering irrevocable written notice of such election (the "Option Notice") to Landlord 3z at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to expiration of the Initial Tenn or the immediately 33 preceding Renewal Term, as applicable. If Tenant does not validly deliver an Option Notice to 3a renew the Lease Term for one (I) or more Renewal Term(s), the provisions of this Paragraph 24.1 35 shall be null and void and of no further force or effect. Any such renewal of this Lease shall be 36 upon the same terms and conditions as this Lease except that Base Rent during each Renewal Term 3� shall be determined as provided in Paraeraph 24.11 and Landlord shall have no obligation to 3s perform any tenant improvements or other work in connection with any such renewal of this Lease. 39 Except to the extent specifically provided in this Paragraph 24.1, Tenant has no rights to renew the ao Lease Term. 4t 24.1.1. Base Rent During Renewal Term. Base Rent during any Renewal Terms az shall be an amount mutually agreed upon in writing by Landlord and Tenant aY least ninety (90) as days prior to the commencement of the relevant Renewal Term, but in no event less than the Base 44 Rent then currently payable by Tenant immediately prior to the commencement of the relevant 45 Renewal Term. If, for any reason, Base Rent for the relevant Renewal Term is not determined ab prior to the beginning of the relevant Renewal Term, then Tenant shall continue to pay the Base a� Rent amount in effect immediately preceding the commencement of the relevant Renewal Term as and, upon final determination of Base Rent for the relevant Renewal Term, Tenant shall pay to ay Landlord a cash payment equal to the sum of such amounts as may be necessary to adjust each 5o monthly Base Rent payment which has been made hereunder to the Base Rent effective as of the 5 i relevant Renewal Term. sz 24.2. Termination Ontion. Notwithstanding the Expiration Date set forth in ss Para�ra hp 1.9.3 of this Lease and subject to the provisions of this Paraera hp 24.2, in the event that sa Tenant builds a building to accommodate TenanPs Permitted Use, this Lease may be terminated t by Tenant provided that (i) Landlord receives from Tenant at least one hundred eighty (180) days z irrevocable prior written notice (the "Termination Notice") of Tenant's election to terminate this 3 Lease, which notice shall, subject to the provisions hereof, specify the date on which this Lease a shall terminate (the "Terminarion Date"); (ii) Tenant shall not, at the time Landlord receives the s Termination Notice hereunder or as of the Termination Date, be in default of any of the terms of 5 this Lease beyond applicable notice and cure periods (if any); and(iii) Tenant delivers to Landlord � the Termination Fee as set forth below (the "Termination Option"). Simultaneous with Tenant's s delivery of the Termination Notice to Landlord and as a condition precedent to the termination of 9 this Lease pursuant to this Paragranh 24.2, Tenant shall pay to Landlord only by cashier's check i o or wire transfer a termination fee equal to (A)the unamortized portion of any leasing commissions �t paid by Landlord in connection with the transactions contemplated in this Lease amortized over i z the Initial Term using an annual interest rate of eight percent(8°/o),plus (B) any amounts otherwise 13 then currently due and payable by Tenant under this Lease (including, without liinitation, any late ta charges, interest or other sums) (collectively, the "Termination Fee"). If the Termination Option �s is validly exercised (including payment of the Termination Fee as provided above),this Lease shall t5 terminate as ifthe Termination Date were the last day ofthis Lease, all obligations under this Lease i� shall continue up to and including the Termination Date and upon the Termination Date, Tenant ts shall surrender possession of the Premises and deliver the same to Landlord in the condition t9 required under this Lease, in which event all unaccrued rights and obligations of the parties under 2o this Lease shall cease and terminate except to the extent such obligations specifically survive 21 termination of this Lease. If Tenant validly exercises the Termination Option as required zz hereunder(including payment of the Termination Fee as provided above)but fails to surrender the zs Premises when and in the condition required, Tenant shall be deemed a holdover tenant from and za after the Termination Date as set forth in Parag_raph 17.3. If Tenant does not exercise the zs Termination Option strictly as provided herein (including payment of the Termination Fee as zb provided above) and/or this Lease is not validly terminated pursuant to this Termination Option 2� on the Termination Date for any reason whatsoever, the Termination Option and Tenant's rights 28 under this ParaQra h�4.2 shall immediately terminate and the provisions of this Paragravh 24.2 z9 shall automatically and without further action required by any party be null and void and of no 3o force or effect and the Lease shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its tenns. 3 t TenanYs obligation to pay the Termination Fee shall survive the expiration or any termination of 32 this Lease. 33 [signatures on following page] 34 i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have exeeuted this Lease on the respective z dates set opposite their signatures below, but this Lease, on behalf of such party, shall be deemed 3 to have been dated as of the Effective Date. a LANDLORD: s PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P., v a Delaware limited partnership � By: PacTrust Realty, Inc., 8 a Delaware corparation, its General Partner � � ��`` K_ ��- 9 Date: � , 2015 By: io Samuel K. Briggs, Vice President i t TENANT: iz THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, �3 a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon ia Date: �� , 2015 By: ��4 L��Piri�� is PrintedName: Sco� LAzcni6� t5 Its: C,�-v ylAnioa C��'! �� Z� , � � \ 4 �TO PORTLAND cxn""pzsoa. I-5 fae /� NOTTOSCAI,E °�es �_5 A PACTRUST PROPEFTY � P�1 '�� ;,� �, OREGON ��&�1��,16; �s �..� ° BUSINESS TO ,� �� ,a '�-� � ppp E � €� /.4i''� �rvu��""� PARK II � � � a a SAC M � HOME �� "� �� te �^ 4 9 DEPOT .r . .�. �� . � . ' xnE Y1sa[c ' �.. � �4 :�. ��_.. o � � � 3 � � 1� - 12 14 c� i ' _��-,, PAqFIC -9 ; � . 5 1""""'�'.�'ko✓� ` #3 •] �s �" � .. � .�; s ' OREGON\ CORPORATE � � s q ��-��",-�"� �s BUSWESS � CENTER � i a ��° } � ��\ � � � " PARK I �� l z 8 m �' ',�w�""`. ,m^ ' � t B 5 '3 � ��// n . .. . . iERN. .E..� N � O �B ��po��O. D'""'cwl 1�9�� /�"""r3 \ 0 � � \ 0.P\IROP 'f' . � nu mn µ� &WES a�mm�F � ❑ � � A / �, � poai�n � ; I \t�"�. r,�ww www � � � '�ACTRUST —_ - � � �" ,��W�eqq�urrym"i F _�.� � -�6USMESS � �—,'...a, �p �� \��,' �"""�� ^��F�ENTER � � e � � .��mmn�M �� q I c�� e �' H 1 � � POPiIAND & WE��1$91LR4AP- ,. —' — � OREGON� � ° " ." o � � BUSINESS � ^`�, � ' ��, � � . W �.w.f I PARK I I I THE PARK ee o ��v,� '�LLLL'�� . h ��: EXHIBIT A T� � & ° THE BUILDING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO POLICE DEPARTM T DATE: 8/4/15 � �' � � Q � � 4� Q ,o „ ii a e,�vs aT zs a�_.zso,_o^No�nNn� ll ' � � � � i i i U_�_ . . ___. .. � ._..._.... .._.._..... __.__ ._.... - ----- ------ ----- ----- ------ ----- �----- ---- ----- ----- ------ ----- I I �w i i i I I I I I I � i � � i P' I, � I, � I, I I . � I I ' I � � �e - - � - - - � - -�- - - - � - - � - - �- - - _ � � ' � � � a I, � � I, I, I, a �� I� I� ��, '' ---—---- ----------- --— -- - -- — ----------- I - - -- � � TH8 PREMISES 667 SF OFFICE ti s,00i sFTorn� PACTRUST BUSINESS CENTER BLDG. N (pbc187) S�A�E,.-2o CiTY OF LAKE OSWEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT �z36SWD�RHAMRo. S�iT�#600 o• io zo• ao EXHIBIT B PORTLAND,OR97224 A PACTRUST PROPERTY 8/4/IS ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION 18-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING A FIRST LEASE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR THE POLICE TRAINING AND EVIDENCE STORAGE SPACE WHEREAS, per Resolution 15-46, the City of Lake Oswego entered into a three year lease agreement (with two 2-yr. options to renew) with the Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. to lease an approximately 5001 square foot warehouse space for evidence storage and training, in Tigard, Oregon, and improvements were made to the warehouse space to provide secure evidence storage; and WHEREAS, the City now has a need to secure a long term lease for evidence storage and training, and city staff and Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. have negotiated the base rent amount for a five year lease extension; and WHEREAS, extension of the lease will avoid the necessity of securing an alternative site and again making improvements to provide secure evidence storage; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lake Oswego City Council that: Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to sign the First Lease Modification Agreement with Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. for police evidence storage and training facilities, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 1. Section 2.This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. // // // RESOLUTION 18-41 Page 1 of 2 Adopted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council held on the 6t" day of November, 2018. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney RESOLUTION 18-41 Page2of2 Exhibit 1 to Resolution 18-41 1 FIRST LEASE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT 2 THIS FIRST LEASE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered 3 into as of the Effective Date (as defined below), by and between PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, 4 L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Landlord"), and THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, a municipal s corporation of the State of Oregon ("Tenant"). 6 RECITALS � A. Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Lease dated as of September 3, 2015 s (the "Lease") for certain premises consisting of approximately 5,001 square feet of warehouse and 9 office space located in Building N of PacTrust Business Center at the address commonly known as io 7236 S.W. Durham Road, Suite 600, Portland, Oregon 97224, which premises are more particularly i i described in the Lease and defined therein as the "Premises." 1z B. Tenant has exercised their Option to Renew as described in Paragraph 24.1 of the 13 Lease and as modified herein. Therefore, Landlord and Tenant desire to modify the Lease as set �4 forth below in this Agreement. t5 AGREEMENT 16 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of » which is hereby acknowledged, and of the mutual agreement of the parties hereto to the terms and �s conditions hereinafter contained, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows: 19 1. Effective Date; Incorporation; Capitalized Terms. 2o Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained herein, the provisions of this 2� Agreement shall be effective on that date as of which both Landlord and Tenant have executed this zz Agreement as shown next to the respective signatures below (the "Effective Date"). The provisions 23 of the Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into the body of this Agreement. Capitalized 24 terms used in this Agreement and not defined shall be deemed to have the same meaning ascribed 2s to them in the Lease. 26 2. Extension of Lease Term. 2� The Lease Term is hereby extended for the period commencing February 1, 2019 and 2s continuing through and including January 31, 2024 (the "First Extended Term") on the same terms 29 and conditions as the Lease, as modified by this Agreement. As so extended, the Lease Term shall 3o expire on January 31, 2024. 3 i 3. Base Rent. 32 Base Rent for the First Extended Term shall be according to the following schedule: Monthly Period of Time Base Rent February 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020 $3,351.00 Februar 1, 2020 through Januar 31, 2021 $3,451.00 February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022 $3,555.00 February 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023 $3,662.00 February 1, 2023 through January 31, 2024 $3,771.00 33 34 4. Condition of Premises. 3s Tenant accepts the Premises for the First Extended Term in its "AS IS" condition and 36 acknowledges that Landlord shall not be obligated to provide or pay for any improvements or 3� alterations to the Premises. 3s 5. Option to Renew. 39 Pursuant to Paragraph 24.1 of the Lease, Tenant's execution of this Agreement shall also 4o constitute the TenanYs exercise of the Option to Renew. This extension satisfies all renewal options 41 under the Lease and Paragraph 24.1 of the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be of no 42 further force or effect. w:\legal working documents\pactrust\pbc\city of lake oswego police department\oswego police pbc187 first Ima v4.docx/kt pbc187 10/17/2018 lakeoswe Page 1 Portland,OR 1 6. Termination Option. 2 Tenant shall continue to have the right to terminate the Lease pursuant to Paragraph 24.2 of 3 the Lease. 4 7. Real Property Tax Exemption / Exclusion of Taxes from Additional Rent. 5 Landlord acknowledges that Tenant may be entitled to claim an exemption from real property 6 taxes for the Premises. To the extent Tenant obtains such an exemption, Tenant shall not be liable for 7 payment to Landlord of any additional sum for real property taxes and Landlord and Tenant agree that 8 any tax savings resulting from the exemption granted under ORS 307.112 shall inure solely to the 9 Tenant. Tenant shall be solely responsible for obtaining and keeping effective any exemption from 10 Taxes. Landlord, at TenanYs sole cost and expense, shall use commercially reasonable efforts to 11 cooperate in obtaining any exemption from Taxes for Tenant. i2 8. Real Estate Brokers; Finders. �3 Each party represents that it has not had dealings with any real estate broker, finder or other �4 person with respect to this Agreement in any manner. Each party shall indemnify, defend, protect ls and hold the other party harmless for, from against and regarding all claims, costs, demands, 16 actions, liabilities, losses and expenses (including the reasonable attorneys' fees of counsel chosen » by the other party) arising out of or resulting from any claims that may be asserted against such ls other party by any broker, finder or other person with whom the party bearing the indemnity 19 obligation has or purportedly has dealt. Each party's respective obligations pursuant to the foregoing 2o indemnity shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of the Lease. zl 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STARO Portfolio Manager. zz The following provision is hereby added to the Lease. 23 Tenant understands that Landlord may be required under applicable law to obtain, input and 24 disclose certain benchmarking data for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY 2s STARO Portfolio Manager. Landlord may also elect to voluntarily obtain, input and disclose such 26 data. Accordingly, within ten (10) days following written request therefor from Landlord (and 2� thereafter as set forth below), Tenant will complete, execute and deliver to Landlord a data release 2s authorization for each utility serving the Premises maintained in Tenant's name or otherwise for the 29 account of Tenant, in form and substance required by the relevant utility provider, permitting the 3o relevant utility to disclose to Landlord TenanYs monthly billing data, building square footage, 3i occupancy type, operational characteristics and other information reasonably required for purposes 32 of inputting the benchmarking data required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 33 ENERGY STARO Portfolio Manager (the "Data Release Authorization"). In addition, if Tenant's 34 name or entity changes, Tenant shall complete, execute and deliver to Landlord an additional Data 35 Release Authorization within ten (10) days following receipt of written request therefor from 36 Landlord, TenanYs failure to comply with the provisions of this Section 9 shall be a material default 3� under this Lease. 3s 10. Warranty of Authority. 39 The person(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of Tenant warrant(s) to Landlord that 4o Tenant is a valid and existing corporation or other relevant entity, that Tenant has all right and 4i authority to enter into this Agreement, and that each and every person signing on behalf of Tenant is 42 authorized to do so. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Landlord warrants to Tenant 43 that Landlord is a valid and existing corporation or other relevant entity, that Landlord has all right 44 and authority to enter into this Agreement, and that the person signing on behalf of Landlord is 45 authorized to do so. 46 11. Ratification. 4� Except as otherwise modified by this Agreement, the Lease is hereby ratified and affirmed 4s and remains in full force and effect. 49 12. Counterparts; Delivery by Facsimile or Electronic Mail. so This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be considered an sl original and all of which together will constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement or s2 any counterpart may be executed and delivered by facsimile or by electronic mail in pdf format and s3 such signatures shall be binding upon the party delivering the same as if they were originals, with an s4 executed original hard copy to follow by overnight courier or U.S. Mail at the request of any party ss hereto. w:\legal working documents\pactrust\pbc\city of lake oswego police department\oswego police pbc187 first Ima v4.docx/kt pbc187 10/17/2018 lakeoswe Page 2 Portland,OR 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the 2 respective dates set opposite their signatures below, but this Agreement on behalf of such party 3 shall be deemed to have been dated as of the Effective Date. 4 LANDLORD: s PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P., 6 a Delaware limited partnership � By: PacTrust Realty, Inc., s a Delaware corporation, its General Partner 9 Date: , 2018 By: io Samuel K. Briggs, Vice President 11 TENANT: t2 THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, 13 a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon 14 Date: , 2018 By: �5 Printed Name: �6 Its: w:\legal working documents\pactrust\pbc\city of lake oswego police department\oswego police pbc187 first Ima v4.docx/kt pbc187 10/17/2018 lakeoswe Page 3 Portland,OR 10.3 a�tiA .�as CnUNCIL REPnRT � , �,1 �� n V ❑ �REGOr� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Approval of Meetin� Minutes DATE: October 31, 2018 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2018 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve minutes as written. ATTACH M ENTS 1. September 18, 2018, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 O��A E � �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING � � � � MINUTES �c� O September 18, 2018 �REGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. on September 18, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kol: �off, "Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; L ��id � �well, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Ivan Ande� .m, Parks and Recreation Director; Scot Siegel, Planning and P ''�ing Ser�, �s Director 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Counc, � thP "��qe c ,�Ilegiance. 4. CITIZEN COMME'" • Meg Wilkinson, '�304 Mar, rie Avenue Ms. Wilkinson conveyed h�. �or arns about potential rezoning of the Golf Course property in preparation for a decision to se, She challenged the different process being undertaken on this property as compared to the similar Tryon Cove Annex, which arguably might have been declared surplus; the Golf Course property, she opined, was used actively every day and could not be considered surplus. The rezoning discussion was premature until Council and citizens could have an opportunity for full discussion about a sale decision and impacts of rezoning. She emphasized the importance of public input, including effects on adjacent neighbors. • Frederic Schildmeyer, 1370 Koawood Drive As a resident near the Golf Course, Mr. Schildmeyer observed that the course serves the intended purpose of the "Tot Lot" levy for public use. He described the wide community support for the Golf Course and asserted that rezoning for residential use would conflict with the land use City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14 September 18, 2018 agreement by removing public lands that enrich and enhance the lives of city residents. Since the potential property sale at the course could only partially offset costs of a new Parks and Recreation center, he suggested that any proceeds should instead be used to improve the current 18-hole course. He objected to siting of a new center at the course as it would be removed from the population center and would have adverse traffic impacts in the Golf Course area. If the City ultimately decided on this site for the recreation center, he would have many questions, including issues of traffic studies, improvements such as sidewalks, street lights and widening, removal of old-growth trees, and neighborhood parking. • Deborah Wilkinson, 17304 Marjorie Avenue Ms. Wilkinson, a Golf Course volunteer, expressed concerns about potential sale of land there. The feasibility study done earlier by the City, she observed, was based on concept, rather than on soil sampling and sensitive lands. According to the information she had seen, it was calculated that a course reconfiguration would produce a profit with half the number of the current holes; she challenged this assumption. For these reasons, it was prematur� ,o consider selling and rezoning of the land until the viability of maintaining some kind of g� course was determined. As the property was essentially donated to the City for develop� an, f open space for children, she wanted this legacy preserved and saw no need to expe�'�te the sG nrocess. In response to Mayor Studebaker's inquiry, she c. -�fied t� �t her co�,.;erns related to potential sale of a portion, but not all, of the Golf Course prope� • Don Wayne, 1491 Koawood Drive � Mr.Wayne noted that discussion of re��ning m h+ z pre��ature before a decision is made about selling a portion of the Golf CoursP ��, � the C ancil Report for the February 27, 2018, Council meeting, he reminded Council oi �e pro� �sal for �ly six houses on the property; rezoning to R- 7.5 would allow for up to 10 or 11 h� ,F , a�,_ ,�sked that Council commit to the lesser number. He asked Council to consi�� '-�iding �ublic meeting at a time of day that would accommodate a variety of residents' sr' ,;dules. -his �� Id allow them to air their own views and hear those of others on the matter. In response to an inquiry fr� Co� .;ilor Manz, Mr. Lazenby clarified that the process of selling Parks property or rezoning w� ' require various public hearings, as well as other forums and means of acquiring input from the community. • Roger Martin, 1405 Cherry Crest Avenue Mr. Martin, a member of the Transportation Advisory Board, expressed concerns about an extended and still-incomplete road project on McVey Avenue. The contractor's parking of construction vehicles and other obstacles that blocked retail parking in the area were a particular issue; he asked Council when the project would be finished. Next he discussed concerns about poor maintenance of the Golf Course and the proposal to reduce it to a nine-hole format. He objected to this because the City would reduce available play opportunities by 50%. If the decision was made to reduce the size of the course, he asked that it be a 12-hole format to accommodate City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 September 18, 2018 a tee-off point for each of two six-hole loops. Council was urged to consider the concerns of many golfers who play the course. • Dawn Martin, 1371 Koawood Drive Ms. Martin described the value of the Golf Course as currently configured to her family and others in the adjacent neighborhood. She expressed doubts that the proposed changes at the course would provide the desired revenue and requested a cost-benefit analysis for community review. A significant concern for her family would be increases to traffic in the area. In response to Councilor LaMotte's question about the specific source of traffic concerns, Ms. Martin cited earlier references to a major thoroughfare that would connect to Stafford Road. In brief discussion, Councilor LaMotte assured her that no such road was planned. • Darryl Boom, P.O. Box 328, Lake Oswego Noting that he serves as a Golf Course volunteer, Mr. Boo� circulated to Council a sample of nuisance grass that he had collected on the course. To ill�� .ra�. '�is concern about the poor level of maintenance, he described efforts he had made + addres5 ,sues himself and to report numerous deficiencies that needed to be addressed ' ,� the City, to , avail. He opined that the course could be fine in its current format, but the i. �d for �aintenar�,;e is critical. Any sale of Golf Course property should be determined by citizer�. `� ,mselves, he opined. The envisioned Parks and Recreation center at this site wo�•'� not mee, '�e community's needs, and he would strongly oppose a Parks bond that that inclu� �u �ncing t� �uch a center. Councilor Gudman thanked Mr. B��m for F, �� ,rk ai the Golf Course, noting that Council recognized the need to upgrade tr ��, ;e anc, �ddress maintenance issues. In responding to questions from Councilor LaMo: � Mr. f �om in� �ated that a Parks and Recreation center more accessible to the population cente� �� .� �.. +he community well, but a more modest design, e.g., without a gymnasium �� •'�I sui� �. • Scott Bullard, 1130 Taylc � Crest Lane Speaking as Parks, Recrea� � an�' Jatural Resources Advisory Board (PARKS Board) Co-chair, Mr. Bullard reminded Councii " �e Board's review of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). They had ensured that an actionable list of project priorities was identified for commitment of monies from Parks bond renewal and now urged Council to support renewal of the expiring bonds. He emphasized that, as a bond renewal, it provided for many services that the community had come to take for granted. The capital projects involved in the bond-money commitments were significant, including a Parks and Recreation center and rehabilitation of the Golf Course. The Board had also identified other important projects, such as the Adult Community Center remodel, athletic fields constraints, and Tennis Center work to address ADA non-compliance. In response to Councilor Gudman's request for his position on re-doing the Golf Course, Mr. Bullard advised that he wished to address only the issue of bond renewal at this time. • Maria Harvey, 17325 Banyan Lane City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 September 18, 2018 Ms. Harvey expressed concerns about neighborhood safety if two acres of Golf Course property were to be sold for development of houses on the east side of her street. She described paths created by citizens, rather than by the City, to provide safe pedestrian access to nearby schools and for recreation, in the absence of sidewalks and bike paths. Council was asked to weigh other values of the Golf Course to her neighborhood, including aesthetics that would be diminished with addition of the houses. The neighborhood is walkable, she noted, because there were no houses on the Golf-Course side of Banyan Lane. Councilor Manz expressed interest in visiting the neighborhood and seeing the bicycle and walking trails created by residents; Ms. Harvey welcomed the opportunity to guide her. 4.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 5. STUDY SESSIONS Mr. Lazenby described the physical set-up of the Cc��ncil ChG hers for the study sessions, pointing out advantages of the roundtable arrangP� �nt. It also `�orded the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of such a set-up in a ne�. ��ty hal' 5.1 Parks Bonds and Golf Course ` Re ort and Attachments � P Mr. Lazenby discussed the serie� .,� � �catio� for Parks and Recreation functions in recent years, and expressed appreciati to Mr Anderr� 'm and his staff for their flexibility in achieving smooth transitions throughout. Tr�. �i� ��, "��ation, with staff and functions spread across the city, was not ideal from a �-�'�s-ma �qement standpoint, nor did it best serve citizens. He provided background le� .,ng to . � stu� session, notably the PARKS Board recommendations to Council, as discuss� �n the Cou, il ReNort. In particular, the process on bonds renewal would need to get underway ii '�uncil wi ied to advance the concept of renewal. Discussions and decisions on the Golf Cour� �ropF .y also would be time sensitive and complex. Exploration on a recreation center could corn�. � , but some lead time was required to obtain more accurate cost and other data, including traffic impacts. While a decision on the center could be made at any time, it might be intertwined with the parks bonds as it was a major component of the funding. Mr. Anderholm advised that the purpose of the study session was for staff to receive Council direction regarding three issues (Council Report, p 1): renewal of the parks bonds; partitioning, rezoning, and sale of property at the Golf Course; and moving forward with design of a permanent home for Parks and Recreation. Each issue would require lead time for staff to secure the information needed for Council to make the best-informed decision. For the bonds renewal, key components would be the bond language and community engagement to learn which of the prioritized projects citizens would support. For the property sale, he emphasized that staff's analysis to date was limited to a high conceptual level; further work would be needed to inform a Council decision as to the viability of the property sale as a funding option and whether or not it City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 September 18, 2018 was worth the trade-offs. Regarding a permanent home for Parks and Recreation, he echoed Mr. Lazenby's concerns about current inefficiencies; he noted that some services offered for the past 12 years could no longer be accommodated. As discussed in an earlier session, a facility co- located with the Golf Course services could offer certain operational efficiencies. Mr. Anderholm reminded Council of staff's research in 2015-2016 to seek a contract operator for the Golf Course. While anticipating that such an operator might also bring capital for improvements to the course, they had instead learned that an operator would expect the City to invest the capital, after which a contract operator might be engaged. Mr. Anderholm acknowledged that the Parks and Recreation goal is to have a well-maintained and operationally- effective golf course. He reiterated that initiation of any processes such as rezoning or declaring surplus property would call for a large amount of public input. Mayor Studebaker expressed the desire to offer relief to citizens after the Parks bonds were paid off. In considering renewal, he asked how staff would determine (1) citizens' willingness to take on the financial burden and (2) the projects they really wanted �his would also help to identify whether all or only some of the bonds needed to be rer ded. Mr. Anderholm proposed conducting a scientifically-valid survey. With Council's ar .oe ' he recommended that prior to presenting bond language to Council, staff should surve�•tne pub�. hoth to determine the level of support for renewal and the projects they would be ir' �ested in fun, �q. Councilor Kohlhoff questioned the need for a sur� � � opposed to relying on the PARKS Board's recommended priorities. Mr. Anderholm opin� +hat it would be prudent to survey the community itself about support for a bond re :._ ' He als� Kplained that the many items in the Parks CIP and the Board's project list had b� �n pr�� d by the community over a number of years. Including a request for citizens' currer. ar� ,ities �vould help to identify those that were relevant today. Mr. Lazenby note� .,�G �:ounci, ad the final authority as to what was proposed to voters. Foregoing a survey v s an c �tion; h� �ever, a survey could provide insights on the chances of passage and perhaps � `�F ..,,_ '- nlaced before the voters. Councilor LaMotte in�'' ,atea . �t co. �xt for the yes/no decision on bonds renewal was important to citizens. :iven the e �rk ai�aady done in identifying project priorities and public comment heard in the p. + couple years, he wished to learn more about bond and Systems Development Charge (SD� fundi� �, but otherwise was ready to review the priorities list. In response to logistical ques �r , from Councilor Buck, Mr. Lazenby discussed timing considerations and various opt�ons, reiterating that the fundamental decision for Council was whether or not to consider proceeding with a bond renewal; a final decision on the first expiring bond would need to be made by about February 2019. A community survey this fall to gauge support for bond renewal and to identify the projects citizens would support was intended to precede Council's final decision, Mr. Anderholm noted. Recognizing the important work of the PARKS Board, Councilor Gudman suggested that input from the survey would build further on it. Additionally, it would provide a much better sense of the public appetite for bonds renewal and amounts, leading to a better decision by Council. Councilors Manz and Buck concurred in supporting a survey, describing additional benefits of the process. Councilor Buck noted that access to parks programs and recreation was a long-held value of the community; he expressed strong support for moving forward on the renewal and for following the survey with a list to put before voters. Councilor LaMotte discussed the need for Council to focus on the updated City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 September 18, 2018 PARKS Board priorities list as a means of substantiating a bonds-renewal request. Acknowledging the complexity of finding funds, he reiterated that only a little more discussion on the list was needed and Council could then focus on the bond discussion. Mayor Studebaker inquired about available funding for improvements to the driving range. Mr. Anderholm advised that sale of Golf Course property was currently the designated funding mechanism. He indicated that, without bonds funding, this and other Golf Course improvements were not feasible within operating budget constraints. Councilor Gudman asked how the survey might help Council to gain insight on potential trade-offs that might result from a Council decision not to sell Golf Course property. Mr. Anderholm confirmed that staff, PARKS Board, and a survey professional would work to that end in developing the survey; Council would also have the opportunity to review it prior to implementation. Councilor O'Neill, noting the abundance of City-owned park lands in Lake Oswego, asked what precluded the City from utilizing SDCs for maintenance of these properties. Council members were sensitive to addressing such problems through bond me� .�res, particularly in light of the most recent and upcoming school bond impacts on citizens. ' �rould help to address community concerns about sports fields and maintenance of Golf Cc�� d other Parks properties if the City knew it could rely on SDCs for some of these cost� Mr. La, nby explained that State law prohibits use of SDCs for maintenance; rather, the f .;s are charg� for new development and there must be a tie between the new burden placec � systF �s and tr�.: use of SDCs. However, the City is careful to utilize SDCs wherever it can le� �rr .�ely do so. Otherwise, maintenance funding is limited primarily to the operating h��dget ana bonds. In continued discussion, Mr. Anderholm addressed questions from Cou �. �� O'Nei� �nd LaMotte about certain projects on the PARKS Board list and potential eligibil� �for � ,� A Key consideration was that the fees be used for capacity building as opposed to m� �tF dnce. Councilor LaMotte expressed �erest ,� lobby �g the State to allow spending SDC monies where the City, as a largely built-o, ^r .,,,, '`•� r�aeds to use them. He posed questions about the CIP projects prioritizati�� '�ttacr�. �nt 3) ar�d the potential SDC funding of $7.8 million. He opined that it was impor' .��t to � -�erst� �I and convey to constituents the Council direction on funding if the decisio� vas to go �at fo� a full or partial bond renewal. Mayor Studebaker requested clarification o, '�e surve� n relation to other public-input processes. He endorsed a survey to address the thre� �licy i� ,ues raised in the Council Report (Executive Summary, p 1). Mayor Studebaker moved to conduct a survey on three topics: the Golf Course, the renewal bonds, and whether the City would put a recreation center at the Golf Course. Councilor O'Neill seconded the motion. Councilor Kohlhoff expressed her support for renewal of bonds. She opposed the sale of City property to meet a short-term expense, in this case, the Golf Course acreage that would support rehabilitation of the course. She noted that the recreation center seemed to have evolved from Golf Course discussions as an identified need, but without data showing that it would be more cost effective than the various rental arrangements. She would not support moving forward on a new building at the Golf Course until there had been discussions about how that site could best meet the community's needs, including such possibilities as a swimming pool. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 September 18, 2018 Regarding direction on the first policy question posed in the Council Report, Councilor Gudman confirmed his support for the May 2019 Parks bond measure, including community polling to identify priority projects and language for Council approval. The process could also help to identify interest in acquisition of more acreage in the Stafford area by the City, which he favored. Councilor Buck raised questions about the scope of the survey, i.e., whether or not the questions would focus only on bond renewal, and discussion followed. Mayor Studebaker described the benefits of asking not only about people's preferences for spending the funds, if approved, but also about related issues; these could include preferences on rehabilitation or re-configuration of the Golf Course and views on viability of a recreation center at the site. Mr.Anderholm perceived the survey as first asking citizens if they generally supported a bond to fund a recreation center and then asking how they would rank the projects prioritized by the PARKS Board. Noting the lengthy process that had led the City to the Golf Course location, Councilor Buck emphasized the need to take action. He expressed support for moving forward with the survey as described, but opposed the sale of Golf Course land. Councilor LaMotte reviewed various points raised in the �'' ,;ussion, highlighting the growing need for a suitable facility for Parks and Recreation, as � :il , concerns that might be raised about acquisition of additional Parks land. The survey sr�uld not. 'v ask about citizens' appetite for a bond, but also their preferences, based on the Pl` ,r�S Board re. �nmendation, with possible refinements. Additional opportunities for use of SD � shou��' be ident�.,ed, he noted. A roll call vote was held, and the motion nassed, w� Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, a, , �+man v� 'ng `aye'. (7-0) At Councilor LaMotte's suggestion. Counc n� .� co�,�idered the two other policy issues presented in the Council Report (p ,. Councilor LaMotte moved to ta►. �t� .. _, '�� sale of the property, off the list at this time until Council receives fur*`-�r info. �ation trom the survey and other inputs. Councilor Gudman seconded the .�otio�,. A voice vote was helu, �nd the i otion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, h. �z, L� �otte, and Gudman voting `aye'. (7-0) Mayor Studebaker clarified tha� this action meant the Council was not proceeding until further notice on the sale of the Golf Course property. Councilor LaMotte moved to let staff go out for a 30% schematic-design level of work on the Parks and Recreation center to go beyond the initial feasibility study. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman voting `aye'. Councilor Kohlhoff voted `no'. (6- 1) 5.2 Annexation Policy City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 September 18, 2018 Report and Attachments Mr. Lazenby reviewed background of Council and staff efforts to find an acceptable policy or other approach to annexation, as discussed in the Council Report. Although staff had suggested at the most recent study session that elections could serve to gauge views of registered voters in unincorporated areas, later discussions revealed interest in deeper dialog prior to any vote; Council had generally agreed that at least a couple of ineetings per neighborhood would be desirable. After further research, staff had determined that the time and cost of annexation elections exceeded their initial expectation; a significant concern was a State requirement related to the election process that would call for a legal description of each property. Given an estimate of$200,000-300,000 for reallocated "in-kind" staff time plus a potential $100,000-140,000 for out- of-pocket expenditures, staff instead suggested a focus on ways to resolve inefficiencies of the current annexation process. Exploration of the election method could continue, but would proceed on a case-by-case basis, thus focusing staff efforts more productively among the various unincorporated areas. As an example of one area that might � ;er likelihood of annexation, he cited Southwood Park, where board members for its water di� ,ct had approached the City about issues there. He offered three recommendations to Council: (1) C� .�inue to purs. the election method but in a more strategic way, exploring options to addres. �frastr� :ture net.�s in the areas while still looking out for the best interests of City taxpayers. �. �`" �east on a trial basis, discontinue the current"cherry stem annexations", and direct�taff to retu� �vith a more logical and efficient policy. Preliminary discussion with Clackamas Cour, - ,. ''��ted th� `�asible approaches were available, if not a solution for the longer-term issues ot ewe� �nection across the areas. (3) Consider ways to address inequitable subsidies arovide� `�y " �e C;��,� to residents of unincorporated areas, notably for police response, but al� ��. r servi s. These three initiatives would allow the City to move forward, at limited exper �, to rE ,olve sc �e of the concerns. He acknowledged that the area-by-area approach would dra�. �u+ .,., , ��Ps�, but opined that staff could do a much more effective job by focusing effr�� Nher� '�ere is a reasonable chance of success. Mr. Powell clarified tr State req� �mer�� for the legal description as an element of projected cost: The requirement . ,s for thE egal description of the boundaries of each territory to be annexed, rather than for ea � prop ty within the territory, as mentioned earlier. Mr. Siegel detailed some of the staff workload impacts that had been considered in making the recommendations. Moving forward with the election process, including a timeline for preparation of ballot language and the community process desired by Council, would extend to the November 2019 election. He described necessary redirection of Planning and Engineering staff time and related service-level impacts, as well as benefits of suspending the current piecemeal annexations. In addition to in-house efforts, if Council decided to proceed with the six elections, services would need to be contracted for surveying and for facilitating the community dialog. Staff's recommendation (Council Report, p 2)would entail impacts both from the outside contract services and redirection of in-house staff, he added, but they felt confident that these could be accommodated. Mr. Lazenby reminded Council of their general goal to consider a revised annexation policy. Staff urged that at least an alternative to cherry-stem annexations be tried. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 September 18, 2018 Councilor LaMotte described steps taken in reviewing annexation policy over a period of time and commented on some progress and expressions of interest in unincorporated areas. Discussing options for Southwood Park, he asked if a neighborhood vote would be required for annexation. Mr. Powell described situations under which consents might allow for annexation; if not applicable there, then a vote would be required, he indicated. In continued discussion of comparative survey/election expense, Mr. Lazenby reiterated staff's recommendation that survey expense not be incurred unless there was high likelihood of a positive election outcome, supported by more intensive dialog and study. Councilor LaMotte discussed the importance of providing facts about the process to the areas and taking the more economical route. Questioning the staff costs outlined in Attachment 1 to the Council Report, Councilor LaMotte suggested that neighbors' needs were more a matter of general facts and costs than detailed neighborhood plans. Mr. Siegel confirmed that the staff costs were not predicated on preparing any kind of neighborhood plan beyond the data required for an annexation report. Instead it was a high-level projection driven by the request for two meetings per neighborhood, along with a fact sheet, rather than by staff's recommended alternative focusing � individual neighborhoods. The estimate intended to encompass the prepared fact sheet, r ,posed neighborhood meeting(s), preparation of ballot-measure language, Engineering De� .rt�. �nt review of all six areas, and findings for presentation of ordinances to Council. In �•immary, was the annexation process under the election method, along with the communitv ,put Council � �I requested. In response to Councilor Gudman's request, Mr. Sie� �i .;scribed anticipated tradeoffs if it was decided to move forward concurrently on ali �ix areas � opposed to only one. As detailed in Attachment 1, City staff would be diverted � ��, +her res�. �sibilities to the annexation efforts, with anticipated impacts on City functions anc, �ervic,. ��Pls. The effects would be substantial at least in the near term, he acknowledged. Mr. L zP� ay re,.erated that if cherry-stem annexations were discontinued, staff resourcF �,. 'd the� ae earmarked for planning an area-by-area approach. Mr. Siegel indic� �d th� startii only with Southwood Park, a relatively straightforward situation, would h� � - ..,.. � �mNact on delivery of City services. Councilor Gudman recommended to h�� ^ollea� �s that t�iey move forward only with Southwood Park. Councilor Buck em� �sized the nportunce of ensuring that both the City and residents of unincorporated areas v� •� ready � meet for productive discussion. By acting on staff's recommendation, Council � ��Id m� �ate some of the City's concerns, including the inequitable subsidies, while showing res�,, + �r some residents' reservations about annexation and allowing time for preparation and meaninyful dialog. The staff recommendation offered a good balance of all of the interests at this time, he opined. Councilor Manz reiterated her opposition to any annexation, but acknowledged the desire of some neighbors in these areas for continuing dialog. She also recognized the potential value of moving forward with Southwood Park on an election process as a means of developing tools for the longer term. Her priority was that Council consider differences between the neighborhoods, as opposed to implementing blanket annexation, with or without a fact sheet. She would consider putting cherry-stem annexations on hold as she regards the policy as patently unfair. Councilor Kohlhoff expressed strong support for staff's recommendation to disallow cherry-stem annexations. She also endorsed their recommendation to approach annexation one City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 September 18, 2018 neighborhood at a time, possibly starting with Southwood Park; the eventual goal should be a single city of generally-happy residents, achieved perhaps over the course of 10 years. Finally, she discussed the impasse that was apparent with regard to neighborhoods' desire for information and staff's challenges in responding effectively. She suggested that some way be found to address the material questions, so that good decisions could be made, both by residents and Council. Councilor LaMotte reiterated reasons that Council should revise the policy and disallow cherry- stem annexations at this time. He indicated that City residents continued to question the provision of services to unincorporated areas, asking Council to address this as a matter of fiscal responsibility. He emphasized the demand for information, both from residents of the city and unincorporated areas. Council might decide to slow the process somewhat; however, he indicated that he would oppose an approach that simply addressed Southwood Park, suspended cherry-stem annexations, and analyzed the subsidized services, leaving the process for the other areas as an open question. Councilor Gudman moved that Council give direction to r .ve forward with the Southwood Park neighborhood only at this time. Mayor Studebak� s� �nded the motion. Councilor Gudman recapped the benefits of South� �od Park as . �eighborhood that already has a provider for sewer and surface water services, �rovidir � the City .� learning opportunity that can be applied to potential annexation votes in other -� �. While acknowledging some of the benefits, Councilor LaMotte challenged th� lack of a 'an to address other areas once the Southwood Park process had played out, rE t, `�� conc� �s about other areas having to wait for attention. In additional discussion, Coun� 'or b., � raised questions specific to the process anticipated for Southwood Park; in resqondin� M� �azt.�by emphasized the need for broader discussion with residents, given th:" ��. '�wood �nterest was driven largely by the water district. Councilor Manz proposed that a . :i� �,,._ '��et oe prepared to address the many requests of residents in unincorporated �-��s. Ir� �suing a�scussion of the scope of a fact sheet, Councilor O'Neill asked if a friendl� amenu �nt n, '�t be offered to include a data sheet applicable to all of the areas, as suggestc by Counc� r LaN��tte. Councilor Gudman declined to accept such an amendment. Mayor Stu �baker, a second, indicated agreement with this position. A roll call vote was held, a. � .�e motion failed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Buck and Gudman voting `aye'. Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Manz, and LaMotte voted `no'. (3-4) Councilor Gudman moved to no longer do "cherry stems". Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. Mr. Lazenby noted that this would provide preliminary direction from the Council and that staff would return with specific policy language. A voice vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman voting `aye'. (7-0) City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 September 18, 2018 After responding to questions about an initial motion related to services, Councilor LaMotte moved to direct staff to continue their research on those services to non-residents that are not being reimbursed to the City, such as library, recreation, events, police, and others that they may find, in a simple, brief report back to Council to identi what they could be as far as fees and services. Councilor Kohlhoff seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman voting `aye'. (7-0) Councilor LaMotte moved to have staff come back with a timeline that includes Southwood as the first neighborhood to be worked on and to continue to program neighborhoods that are not only ready to go, but in a program that is spread out and not all condensed before November, to get a chance to do outreach as voted 6-1 by Council about two meetings ago. Councilor Kohlhoff seconded the motion. In response to a request for clarification from Councilor Gudm� , Councilor LaMotte confirmed that a `yes' vote would commit to the outreach process for anr �cation in all unincorporated areas, but not to the annexation decision itself; the intent was to .o� Forward with dialog. Councilor Gudman stated that he believed this to be overly amb�`�ous, an�. '�at the process should begin with one area. At Councilor Buck's request, Counc�' ,r LaMotte a�. rentiated his purpose from staff's recommendation to hold off on annexa. n ele�'�ons urn,. sufficient interest was demonstrated by affected residents: Southwood Park . ��' , be on a"vote track"while other areas would be on an "outreach track" until such tim� as they r, �ht decide to proceed with annexation. A roll call vote was held, and the motior, faileu �+h (:ouncilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and LaMotte voting `aye'. Mayor Studehaker ar, ' C .�nci�.,rs Buck, Manz, and Gudman voted `no'. (3-4) In light of other vote outcomes t� '�i� �,.,,. ^ouncilor Gudman discussed the possibility of reintroducing his initial mot��- � �., to �ve forward with Southwood Park on a standalone basis. Discussion ensued abo�� ,orma� �the �. +ion. Mr. Lazenby described r, "�-level in rmation that could be provided by staff to facilitate outreach, and Mr. Siegel suggested � �ourc� , for exploring alternate paths to annexation. As a matter of procedure, Mr. Fowell questioned that Councilor Gudman's reintroduced motion would be substantively different from the initial motion. After additional discussion, Mr. Powell recommended that it be considered a motion for reconsideration; as such, the motion would need to be made by a Council member who had voted `no' on the motion earlier. Councilor O'Neill moved that Council give direction to move forward with the Southwood Park neighborhood only at this time. Councilor Buck seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors O'Neill, Buck, Manz, and Gudman voting `aye'. Councilors Kohlhoff and LaMotte voted `no'. (5-2) City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 September 18, 2018 Councilor LaMotte moved that staff come back with a plan of outreach over the next year or two or three, depending on workload, that the City will make a serious effort to get out and talk to folks in at least one of the two meetings that Council approved six-to-one two meetings ago. Councilor Kohlhoff seconded the motion. Councilor Buck suggested that re-evaluation of the current annexation policy by staff would be prudent. He advocated ongoing dialog with neighborhoods to ensure that the City stands ready to engage with them when they are ready, as opposed to a more prescriptive approach to scheduling of presentations and other activities. In further discussion, Councilor LaMotte described his preference for interactive types of neighborhood engagement and how the process could move forward. Councilor Manz indicated that she was not supportive of a firm timeline. An additional exchange of suggestions and clarifications followed. A roll call vote was held, and the motion failed, with Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, and LaMotte voting `aye'. Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Buck, Manz, and Gudman voted `no'. (3-4) 6. CONSENT AGENDA- For Full Council Approva' 6.1 East Waluga Sports Fields Replacement P� �ect � Motion: Award construction contracts for th� -� . Waluga Sports Fields Replacement Project, to: a. Hellas Construction, Ir^., for $1,� ' 007.18 for general site development; and b. Shaw Sports Turf, for $501,1� �._ r�r syntr� `� turf installation and authorize the City Manager to approve and sign the �nst�� ',n contracts. Report and Attachments � � 6.2 Approval of Meeting Min�, s 6.2.1 July 24, 20' .,, Spt. �I M� '�ng Minutes 6.2.2 July 31, 2l, ` Specia Vleeting Minutes Motion: Move to appr� � ,�inutes as written. Report and Attachments END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Gudman moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion assed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman voting `aye'. (7-0) 7. CONSENT AGENDA— For City Councilors' Approval City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 September 18, 2018 7.1 Resolution 18-43, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving Appointments to the Tourism Advisory Committee Report and Attachment Councilor Manz moved to adopt Resolution 18-43. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion ap ssed, with Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz, LaMotte, and Gudman voting `aye'. (6-0) 8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor LaMotte asked that two points be noted for follow-u�. ` the City were to proceed at some future date with sale of lots at the Golf CoursP� �1) A sidewa. �r path would be part of a development Request for Proposal and (2) Fire ac ss alo� � Banyar� �ane would be explored. He also inquired about the status of the short-term rer, '� .�scussion. Mr. Lazenby advised that Planning Commission discussions were contin�iing; the c. �mission would be scheduled to check in with Council as soon as preliminary recc. ��. -�Iations �re available, likely within the next several months. Councilor Kohlhoff requested th- .,� �cil dii .c staff to review code related to panhandling, looking at the possibility for resci �ing or ,therwi� reconsidering it. Councilor Buck expressed his support, and Council consensu. �n�'� .u._ `h�t �taff was directed to do so. Councilor Gudman u�� .�ed r�, ^olle. ��es on the recent Metro Policy Advisory Committee recommendation for e �ansion of , � Urbdn Growth Boundary (UGB) for the cities of Hillsboro, King City, Wilsonville, d, ' Beavert i. Noting that all Council members had received related materials, he advised that t, se ex� ansions were almost exclusively for housing; a key point had identified that UGB expansio�. � �duce jobs and housing only when questions of governance, infrastructure, and market have oeen addressed adequately. He also announced that eight City of Lake Oswego staff inembers had been recognized by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials for work on a joint system involving LOCOM and several other emergency communications agencies in the area. Lastly, he noted that the City had been recognized by the Oregon Water Resources Department under its 2018 Stewardship and Conservation Award Program. Councilor Buck announced that he had contacted State Representative Andrea Salinas about legislation to provide more local control over speed limits. Indicating that he intended to testify at a hearing in Salem to be scheduled on the topic, he described his concerns and those heard from other Lake Oswego residents. Councilor Gudman expressed his support for more local control. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 September 18, 2018 Mayor Studebaker thanked departing Lake Oswego Review reporter Anthony Macuk for his fair and accurate reporting during his tenure with the newspaper. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie �..,mpsc,. City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON - I Kent Studebaker, Mayor � City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 September 18, 2018