Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2019-05-21 04�A Errk� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 21, 2019 OREGOr\ 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. on May 21, 2019, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Wendland, Kohlhoff, Manz, O'Neill, LaMotte and Nguyen Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Crystal Shum, Project Manager; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Madison Thesing, Management Analyst 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT • Tom Archer, 801 SW Atwater Rd, Lake Oswego Mr. Archer spoke to the safety on SW Atwater Rd, particularly at night. The hill has a steep slope and very little ambient light so drivers have difficulty seeing the edge of the road. He had assisted two drivers out of the swale and one needed to be towed out. The swale on both sides of the road showed damage from other mishaps. He had spoken to City staff who agreed that visual boundaries were needed, but they also said nothing could be done until after the start of the new budget year which began on July 1st, though some interim measure might be available such as reflectors or a minimum of striping. He preferred a long-term solution, but offered to install reflectors himself if the City provided the materials. Councilor Manz asked for the specific location of the portion of Atwater Rd he was referring to, noting that most of the road appeared to belong to the County. Mr. Archer noted the top, flat portion of the road was in the county, but at the crest of the hill, the south side was incorporated into the city. The road section of concern was long before the bend toward Iron Mountain, about 300 ft to 400 ft from the new road to the stop sign. Although there was a light at the Atwater Rd/Boca Raton Dr intersection, it was not visible from the top of the hill and did not provide sufficient light for driving. The lower City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 May 21, 2019 portion of the road was illuminated mostly by porchlights. Drivers were misled by seeing the sidewalk and assuming it was the edge of Atwater Rd. 4.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 5. STUDY SESSION 5.1 Tree Permitting Activity Report 2014-2018 Ms. Numanoglu provided an overview of tree regulations and the 2016 Tree Code amendments, as well as data on tree-permitting activity between 2014 and 2018 to illustrate the effects of the 2016 Tree Code amendments. Currently, any tree greater than 6 inches in diameter needed a permit for removal for any reason. She described in detail the nine different tree permits issued by the City, as well as tree protection regulations and requirements, and specific measures to be taken with regard to tree activity, such as disease treatment, removal, or protection. She recalled that in 2015, Council appointed a 30-member Ad Hoc Tree Committee to review the Tree Code and make recommendations on amendments to Council. She read into the record the Council's charge to the Tree Committee and described some of the different opinions members of the Committee had expressed toward tree activity. Recommendations were made that followed the Council's charge and became effective in August 2016. Non-Code changes were also recommended by the Committee and implemented by Staff which included website improvements and data collection. She thanked Wes Pay in the IT department for creating an online computer application that helped the public track Type II tree applications, submit comments, and allowed the collection of more data. After describing some caveats in the Staff memo involving data discrepancies between the tree application the IT Department created and the data from Accela, she presented figures and data to show the impact of the Code amendments. A chart showed the numbers for selected types of tree permits applied for from 2014 to 2018 and how the number of permits applied for changed over time, specifically an increase in Type I permits and a decrease in Type II. She concluded that Council's goals were being accomplished by decreasing the regulatory burden on property owners who could remove less-significant trees with an over-the-counter permit. Dead tree permits continued to increase as expected as trees in irreversible decline were added. Extreme weather events such as droughts or heavy rain could cause a lag effect in tree permit applications because they could take time to affect the trees. Hazard tree permits had generally declined since 2014, which was a bit of a surprise because more tree conditions had been added to hazard trees; however, a specially-certified arborist was required to inspect hazard trees and that may have dissuaded some people from applying for permits. Invasive permits had remained steady, and tree protection permits had increased as expected because of the addition of permit requirements for plumbing and public improvement projects. As a result of Code changes, the number of tree removal and protections violations increased. Referring to a bar graph that displayed the number of applications for Type II Permits, she noted the applicants were classified by single-family owner, single-family builder/developer, or other. She explained the distinctions between the classifications, adding that Staff had wished to City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 May 21, 2019 distinguish between commercial and single-family development versus citizens wanting tree removals for landscaping purposes. Single-family property owners formed the vast majority of Type II applications and removed the most Type II trees; however, builders and developers requested a higher number of tree removals on average per application. Overall, property owners removed about half of the Type II trees and developer/builders removed one third. Referring to a pie chart, she discussed percentages of tree species removed. Douglas firs accounted for about one-quarter of all Type II removal applications, followed by maples, then cedars, pines, and oaks. Finally, she displayed a table that showed the number of Type II applications submitted between 2014 and 2018 and indicated those that had been approved, denied, withdrawn, and appealed. Quite a few applications had been partially denied and that led to some confusion about the data. Often, multiple trees were on one application and if Staff did not deny the entire permit, it would show up as being totally approved because some of the trees on the permit were approved. Councilor Kohlhoff appreciated Ms. Numanoglu's reading of the charge given by Council to the Ad Hoc Tree Committee because it was very helpful in delineating the Committee's boundaries. She was pleased to see that the recommendations given by some Committee members had been recorded but were not allowed due to the narrowness of the charge and had not been discussed. She raised concerns about the number of trees that appeared to have been removed in 2014 through 2018, noting especially those that averaged about 20 inches in diameter. (Attachment 2, Table 2) Ms. Numanoglu clarified Table 1 in Attachment 2 showed the numbers of applications for permits, not the number of trees removed and further clarified 8,234 was the total number of permit applications. No information was available on the number of Type I trees removed because that data could not be added to Accela; it had to be entered manually. Data was available in Table 3 for Type II trees removed in 2015, 2017, and 2018, but it did not account for other tree permit types. Councilor LaMotte referred to the permits for tree topping and asked why the entire tree was not removed. Ms. Numanoglu clarified only utility companies could apply for tree topping permits. Mr. Lazenby stated that PGE was sensitive to the concern of topped trees and planned to do a cleaner job and remove the whole tree if just a stump remained. Councilor LaMotte stated he had received complaints a year ago about residents and PGE not removing emergency trees until a permit was received, but pointed out that Ms. Numanoglu had clarified that emergency trees, such as those lying across a driveway, could be removed without a permit. With regard to mitigation trees, he received confirmation that people who removed a greater number of trees than they could replace would contribute to a tree fund in compensation for the trees they could not replant. The City would use the tree fund to plant more trees. Ms. Numanoglu clarified mitigation trees were tracked, but the City had a limited ability to allow mitigation tree planting off site and individual requests could not be tracked due to the amount of work it would require. She confirmed individual, non-commercial property owners were not interviewed about their experiences at the counter receiving Type I and Type II permits. Councilor LaMotte suggested informal interviews of those people and of the Development Review Commission (DRC), to which he was a liaison, because the DRC was also struggling with tree issues to determine how the process could be smoother. The Tree Committee had recommended review of the Development Code which had not been done for three years. He received confirmation that multiple trees could be removed by a developer on a site under one Type II permit and noted the Tree Code and Development Code did not connect. The two Codes did not need to be merged, but the residential Development Code that allowed a builder to clear-cut a site and then obtain permits needed to be addressed. He was encouraged by City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 May 21, 2019 incentives given by the City to the development on Boones Ferry Road that allowed setbacks from the 10-ft build line and saved a Douglas fir in lieu of installing landscaping. He expressed frustration that the same thing could not be done for residential properties as it would lessen time and workload by encouraging developers and builders to save as many trees as possible. Incentives could include lower fees on tree permits if they saved some trees instead of requiring a lengthy permitting process and possible appeals and Council hearings as happened with Thoma Road. He reiterated that the residential section of the Development Code must be revisited with the Tree Code in mind. Ms. Numanoglu stated that no provisions were in place to allow Staff to negotiate with developers to save trees. The City could not require someone to get a variance to save a tree. Code exceptions or incentives to allow, for example, a certain percentage change to a setback without a variance, would be helpful, but those mechanisms do not exist. Councilor LaMotte stated the 10- to 15-ft setback on the north end of Thoma Road could have been changed through a variance to save four trees, but as Ms. Numanoglu noted the tools to do that did not exist. The properties behind the Firestone site wanted 21 variances and exceptions, and Staff signed off on that even though DRC threw it out. So, 21 variances could be done but negotiations were not allowed to make changes to save trees. Something was wrong with the regulations, and no incentives existed to help developers make the right choices. He asked how procedures could be established to get Staff the necessary tools and to create incentives. Councilor Wendland stated the number of Type II permits for three years totaled 2,121. The Oswego Lake Country Club applied for many tree removal permits for their large renovation project. He received confirmation those trees were incorporated into the data, and noted their inclusion might have skewed the data. He asked if it was possible to know how many trees were removed without the City knowing, and what the percentage of compliance was. Ms. Numanoglu indicated that in total, there were 20 to 30 violations reported in the last three years. The system was complaint-based. She believed most people knew about the tree regulations and acted in good faith. It was hard to remove a tree, and diligent citizens called the City when they saw it happening. Mitigation trees were a larger issue, but having an additional Code enforcement officer helped. However, mitigation trees were easy to remove after verification, which she believed to be a bigger problem than larger trees being removed without a permit. Councilor Wendland said he was surprised about the small number of violations and believed it to be a good sign that the City had communicated tree regulations effectively. Ms. Numanoglu clarified that number did not account for complaints that were investigated, just those that had turned into violations. Councilor Kohlhoff understood that Table 3 showed a total of 2,121 trees were removed in 2015, 2016, and 2017 with an average size of just under 20 inches. Noting Table 1, she asked how many of the 8,237 permit applications resulted in actual removal. Ms. Numanoglu replied the number was unknown because when a permit was issued, no checking was done to see if the trees were actually removed. The number represented applications for a permit type. It was unusual for the City to fully deny a dead tree permit or a permit for a hazardous tree because Staff would direct the applicants to the proper permit type or indicate that the tree proposed to be removed did not qualify. She did not know from the data how many permits were approved versus those denied, but most were approved. Also, an applicant may withdraw an application before a denial took place. Councilor Manz asked if the computer application saved staff time. Ms. Numanoglu replied that it did in terms of reporting, which was much faster than before. Almost all permit information City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 May 21, 2019 was pulled from Accela into the app, so it did not require manual entry, although it did not completely eliminate Staff effort. Trees had to be manually entered because that data was not available through Accela, though the amount of Staff time involved was not significant. Councilor Manz stated she was interested in Smart City functions and providing transparency to the citizens. She inquired about the apparent increase in the number of fruit trees removed from 2017 to 2018 and was informed fruit trees were often removed because they attracted a lot of bees. Councilor O'Neill noted agreement may never be reached with everyone regarding tree permits and moved the discussion to the increase or decrease of the tree canopy. Ms. Numanoglu described data from 2015 that analyzed the tree canopy for other purposes, noting it showed through an aerial photograph and infrared imaging, a tree canopy of approximately 50 percent. She warned that it was difficult to say how accurate the data was due to inherent flaws in tree canopy data. In 2014, a Lidar flyover was done, but no reliable way existed yet to analyze that data. A flyover in November 2019 would provide data, and GIS or a consultant would analyze it to determine any differences between 2014 and 2019. Technology improvements for Lidar had made the data helpful but of somewhat questionable accuracy if compared between 2014 and 2019. The 2019 data could not be compared to the 2015 data because the methodologies were completely different. Councilor Nguyen clarified that tree protection permits did not result in tree removal and that those applications were about 11 percent of the total. Noting the small number of unpermitted tree removals, he inquired about the fine. Ms. Numanoglu replied the fine was in the fee schedule, but she could not immediately quote the amount. An enforcement fee and a fee per caliper inch were in place, and the fine could be several thousands of dollars for a large tree and required a court appearance. Councilor Nguyen wanted to make sure the fine was substantial enough to discourage illegal tree removal. Mr. Powell noted an enforcement fee and a restoration fee existed and typically, those came to the same amount of the presumptive fee a judge would impose, but for multiple offenders with a long history the City could request that the presumptive fee not be accepted, because a fine could be placed on top of it that could be up to $1,000 per tree. A fine at that level was rarely imposed because multiple offenses were infrequent, so stronger enforcement was available but not usually necessary. Staff exercised discretion in enforcement depending upon the circumstances. Councilor LaMotte stated he had heard multiple times tonight that the City did not have the proper tools. Variances were granted for setbacks, but they did not seem to be available regarding trees. He requested a straw poll of the Councilors on whether a short research project could be undertaken by the Planning Department to determine incentives and/or tools to allow Staff more say in saving trees in residential developments, perhaps including an educational component to help builders understand the goal. He received complaints about the aggravation of filing for a tree permit, and the City could not enforce every violation. He reiterated that the City needed to provide incentives to builders to save trees. Mr. Lazenby said it was a policy question that could be addressed later if it appeared the process would take a long time. Staff time consisted of two parts: presenting policy options to Council and making changes that required additional time from Staff and the Council. Staff could inform Council on the process needed to implement policy options or changes. Ms. Numanoglu confirmed no incentives were currently built into the Development Code and different zoning regulations to save trees, so Staff could not adjust setbacks or other standards in order to accommodate trees. Other complications included the small sizes of some lots that would not allow any adjustment to setbacks. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 May 21, 2019 Mr. Siegel stated that with regard to incentives, the City had little control over smaller or narrower residential lots with 5-ft to 10-ft setbacks; however, it could be different for a larger commercial lot that had different standards. For example, in Lake Grove, a standard had required a building to be a certain distance from the street, which turned out to be an impediment to saving trees, so the Planning Commission recommended and Council approved a change to the Code that allowed Staff and the Applicant to do creative problem solving for a good design to save trees. If Council wanted Staff to prepare a study or just a quick assessment of the possibilities, direction indicating whether Council would be willing to reduce the size of homes would be helpful because that would be necessary to save a significant number of trees. Councilor LaMotte reiterated that incentives for commercial development to save trees should be transferred to residential development. Staff could be given a tool to adjust a setback, for example, to save a tree. Mr. Siegel described a scenario where a building could be moved to save a tree and reduce the setback on one side in order to create more space on the other, but then the development would move closer to a neighbor's property. Incentives involved tradeoffs. Mayor Studebaker inquired which members of Council would like Staff to return at a future meeting with information about Code incentives to retain trees. Councilors LaMotte and Kohlhoff indicated they would, Mayor Studebaker and Councilor O'Neill did not wish to explore the matter. Councilors Manz, Nguyen, and Wendland did not offer an opinion. Councilor LaMotte expressed frustration at the three-year delay on the issue. Councilor Kohlhoff suggested referring the matter to the Planning Commission might be more effective than simply asking the Planning Department for suggestions. Councilor Wendland stated if the Planning Department believed a tool was needed to make Lake Oswego better, that should be done, but he was not suggesting regulations to save trees by having a smaller building permit because it would be a disincentive to buying a lot. If Councilor LaMotte believed the Code could be improved, Council should do that for the people of Lake Oswego. If Staff believed deficiencies existed in the Code, he supported them in saving trees and still having people develop what they wanted. He was not suggesting a major overhaul of the Code. Councilor O'Neill described the effort Council and Staff had made in the last six years to not have the Code be arbitrary. For many years, the Code allowed Staff to move the goalposts, which created confusion and made it difficult for architects to know what was acceptable. The City had done a great job in the last six years and had heard from architects that as long as a plan met the rules and regulations of the building envelope, they could build within it. Councilor LaMotte responded that Staff could make changes except when it involved a tree, having received notices showing adjustments made for other reasons. Ms. Numanoglu stated a land use application process was required and was not an outright decision by Staff. She estimated that about a dozen Residential Infill Design Reviews were granted last year. 6. COUNCIL BUSINESS 6.1 Public Improvement Contract Award for Construction of Boones Ferry Road (Oakridge Rd/Reese Rd — Madrona St) Project (WO 183) Ms. Shum reminded Council had been asked last November to approve a competitive proposal selection process for construction of the Boones Ferry Road Project. She described the specific City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 May 21, 2019 benefits of a process that required both cost and qualification information from the contractors. The process led to a bid the project team believed to be the best value to the City. Six proposals had been received and scored, and interviews had been conducted with four contractors as two had withdrawn. On April 30th, a public open bid event was held and Wildish Standard Paving Company was the top candidate. She displayed elements of the proposal shown by Wildish that the team had found impressive. Wildish also provided documentation of similar projects in other cities, which she displayed on PowerPoint slides. Wildish's bid was in the middle of the four bids received, but the team believed Wildish had the best qualitative scores. She detailed cost estimates of the project to date as outlined in the Council Report and noted the construction management cost of $224,000 had been double-counted and should be included only in the design, engineering, and environmental cost to-date because it was for pre-construction work. The total estimated cost of the project was $39 million; however, if the staging area was sold for the amount of its purchase, the total would be $36.8 million. The Council was asked to award the contract to Wildish, with construction to start in mid-June and completion planned in about two and a half years. Councilor Manz received confirmation from Ms. Shum that the $21 million cost was for proposed estimated bid items to include 10 percent contingency, who believed the amount to be reasonable. Councilor Wendland received confirmation that the estimated future costs of $1 million for project management administration was for internal Staff costs. He asked Mr. Lazenby how a debit and credit was done from an accounting standpoint when something was assigned to management administration and paid for in the regular budget. Mr. Lazenby explained it was done through a cost accounting factor. The timesheets for engineering Staff were fairly complex and were capitalized as part of the project, and the amount was taken out of the budget. Councilor Wendland noted a $2 million spread between two proposers whose scoring was within nine points. He believed $2 million was a significant number and asked if Staff believed Wildish came out ahead of the other proposers through the visuals they offered. Ms. Shum confirmed that was the case, adding that Wildish had a good proposal with good examples of work they had done. They were not the top proposer at that point, but they interviewed with a team that had years of experience with nearly identical projects in urban business areas like Lake Oswego's, and in mixed-use commercial and residential areas. The difference was $2 million, but Staff believed Wildish had the experience to better estimate the actual costs. Ms. Rooney added this was not a guaranteed maximum price and the final cost could change. This was typical of most projects because situations in the field varied, causing the scope and costs to change. Ms. Shum further noted projects did not always cost more than the estimate and that project deductions could occur. Ms. Rooney added the City may be paying a bit extra, but it was buying better quality and knew it could partner with the Wildish team. For a project the size and complexity of Boones Ferry Project, Staff believed Wildish would deliver outstanding quality, which the Boones Ferry Project warranted. Councilor Kohlhoff said she supported Wildish over the other applicants. She inquired if the City was obligated to sell the staging area it purchased for $2.25 million once the project was complete. Noting the use of some urban renewal funds, Mr. Powell believed if the property was used for something other than this project, the urban renewal account would be refunded the value of the property. He would confirm whether that was the case. Ms. Rooney reiterated the project would cost $36.8 million, but the total cost would be $39.2 million if the staging area was not sold. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 May 21, 2019 Councilor LaMotte asked how the $39.2 million related to the urban renewal district funding. Mr. Lazenby replied Engineering Staff had spoken with the Finance Staff to make sure the cost could be covered. Implications existed for the total project list for the urban renewal district. This was Phase 1 of a potentially two-phase project, with a couple of other items in the urban renewal plan, primarily parking. Part of the work program would include a review of the overall Lake Grove Plan. More funding would be needed to complete all the items on the original list and the LORA Board would decide whether to increase the debt limit. Sufficient funds were available to cover the current project. Ms. Rooney reviewed other funding sources as outlined in the Council Report, including $4 million from ODOT and $5 million from the General Obligation (GO) Bonds, which left $30 million for Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Councilor Nguyen asked if the RFP criteria included any incentives for the bidders to create opportunities for smaller businesses or women- or minority-owned companies. Ms. Shum replied that was not currently a City policy, but Council could direct exploration of such a requirement. Councilor Nguyen noted the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force would have a limited scope, but perhaps in the future the City could say a portion of the work could be awarded to a firm providing a supportive function such as site preparation, much like ODOT did through its Office of Civil Rights. As one of its goals, Council could encourage the development and build the capacity of smaller, local firms. Some of the proposal criteria may exclude smaller firms. Ms. Shum indicated that Wildish had voluntarily disclosed the number of women working in their firm and had inquired if a criterion in the RFP required a certain number. Councilor Wendland moved to award a Public Improvement Contract to Wildish Standard Paving Co. in the amount of $21,450,000 for construction of Work Order 183 — Boones Ferry Road Project. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A voice vote was held and the motion passed with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, O'Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, and Kohlhoff voting aye. (7-0) 6.2 Ordinance 2819, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending Section 20.02.025 of the Lake Oswego Code to Eliminate Business License Requirements for Businesses with Right-of-Way Licenses Under Chapter 51 of the Code Ms. Thesing presented the Council Report, reviewing the background leading to the proposed Ordinance and outlining the advantages the proposed Code changes would offer the City and utilities going through the right-of way application process. The proposed changes stemmed from feedback received from utilities about redundancies in the business license registration process. While the right-of-way and business licensing processes overlapped almost exactly, the right-of-way registration was more comprehensive because it required an annual check-in with City Staff. The proposed Ordinance would expand the franchise agreement business license exemption to include right-of-way license holders to streamline the process and to eliminate charging twice for the same information. In response to Councilor Nguyen's inquiry of the application, Ms. Thesing described the online application process and information requested. Councilor Nguyen did not believe the online application to be burdensome, especially when other jurisdictions probably required even more information. He wanted to ensure the City was not precluding itself from getting the most accurate information, in terms of maps and future expansion, for new franchise agreements. Technology changes quickly, and he supported keeping the process as it was because the City could benefit from knowing more about such projects rather than less. Councilor Wendland City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 May 21, 2019 understood the ordinance only meant that companies would not have to fill out a business license application; they would still have to fill out other applications, so the City would be receiving a lot more information. Mr. Lazenby added that small cell and other technologies were new territory for the City and Staff could come before Council to refine that aspect of the ordinance in the future if desired. Councilor Wendland moved to approve Ordinance 2819. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held and the motion passed with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, O'Neill, LaMotte, Wendland, and Kohlhoff voting `aye'. Councilor Nguyen voted 'no'. (6-1) 6.3 Resolution 19-35, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Declaring the Public Necessity to Acquire Public Pathway Easements on Real Property Located at 475 And 525 Furnace Street Mr. Lazenby stated the adoption of the resolution brought the City Council a step to further its goal to complete the pathway along the Willamette River. He provided an update on the letters sent to the two other property owners, noting neither had responded to date. He was contacted this morning by one of the co-owners of the property at 475 Furnace St and a meeting would be set up between the City and the co-owners in early June. The co-owner had raised concerns in the past about trespass on their property, which Staff agreed was an issue needing resolution. He believed an agreement could be reached with that property owner. A similar resolution had been used to successfully acquire the properties on Boones Ferry Road. The City still had the power of eminent domain, but even with that, market value would be paid for the easement. Recent experience with easements showed they did not detract from the property value, but the City would have the property appraised and would be fair with the property owners. Mr. Powell explained the resolution was a prerequisite to proceeding to eminent domain and negotiations were supposed to follow. If the negotiations were unsuccessful, the resolution would prevent having to start the process over again. The important part was the declaration that it was necessary in the public interest and the project was planned in a way to create the greatest public good with the least public injury. In this instance, the pathway easement widths were the same as those on the connecting pathways; some were built and some to the north were pending being built. No more property was proposed to be taken in the event of a condemnation that was necessary in the public interest to connect the pathway. Councilor LaMotte moved to approve Resolution 19-35. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held and the motion passed with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, O'Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, and Kohlhoff voting aye. (7-0) The Council took a break between 4:57 p.m. and 5:08 p.m. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Requesting to make a comment prior to adoption of the Consent Agenda, Councilor Kohlhoff, called attention to Page 2 of the Council Report for Item 7.3, noting the very specific charge to "Identify barriers to participation and to increase the applicant pool." She explained the charge was made very specific, so it could be done in about six months to the satisfaction of the group and hopefully, with clear results. She noted Councilor Nguyen's point about contract criteria to increase participation of women and minorities was well-received, and while that had not been City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 May 21, 2019 added this time, the Task Force could discuss that in the future. Clearly, the Task Force was not trying to foster identify politics, but truly trying to get a number of people from different circumstances and races to participate. She detailed some Task Force discussions and feedback received regarding various groups, including older adults, youth, women, parents, young families, and businesses. She was excited about what the Task Force had done and she hoped a lot of applications and feedback were received. 7.1 Contract Award for 2019 Pavement Rehabilitation Projects (WO 281) 7.2 Contract Award for 2019 Preventative Maintenance Projects (WO 282) 7.3 Resolution 19-31, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Establishing a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force 7.4 Resolution 19-34, A Resolution Adopting the City of Lake Oswego Addendum to the Clackamas County Multi-Jurisdictional Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 7.5 Alder Creek Kayak and Canoe License and Programming Agreement for Operation at George Rogers Park 7.6 Approval of Meeting Minutes April 9, 2019, Draft Special Meeting Minutes April 16, 2019, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes Councilor Wendland moved to accept the Consent Agenda. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A voice vote was held and the motion passed with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, O'Neill, LaMotte, Nguyen, Wendland, and Kohlhoff voting aye. (7-0) 8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the consent agenda. 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Manz shared that she had attended the Urbanism Next Conference in Portland which centered on Smart City functions and cities' progress into the future. She noted Mr. Lazenby had reported in his weekly report that the IT department had also been looking at Smart City functions on a global basis. Because a Council goal was to look at Smart Cities, she asked that a study session be set up to share the information that had been gathered. She had been asked if Uber and Lyft paid a franchise fee or usage fee to operate in Lake Oswego and believed those services fed into the Smart City concept and suggested that while small, they could be looked at as another revenue stream. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 11. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 5:14 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 May 21, 2019 Respectfully submitted, `Yl4iA &414-P4(01"--- Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder Approved by the Lake Oswego City Council on July 16, 2019 Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 May 21, 2019